Changeset: 34599982
Marking social trails in the Mount Tam watersheds
Closed by danrademacher
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (8159 en) |
---|---|
source | OneTam official trail data |
Discussion
-
Comment from GerdP
please explain:
why do you use highway=social_path ?
I'd prefer highway=path and maybe other attributes like access=private or social=yes (whatever that means) or a note that explains why the ways are special. -
Comment from danrademacher
"Social Trail" is the general name (in the US park world at least) for trails that are not sanctioned by the agency that manages the land in question. The idea is to emphasize that those are different from regular trails or paths in a way that's somewhat similar to the difference between primary and secondary roads, so it's best to tag them in a way that will encourage them to be handled differently. This grew out of a series of conversations at a hackathon at the Department of Interior in Washington last spring (summarized at http://content.stamen.com/trailassist) and follow up conversations with park managers and the US Forest Service about how to best manage the interface of official trail data vs. volunteered trail data.
-
Comment from GerdP
Not sure if I got this right (I'm a German).
Does that mean that a "social trail" should not be used because it maybe disturbe animals or destroy soemthing else? -
Comment from danrademacher
That's right. Erosion is the most common problem in hilly areas. Park officials usually want to delete such trails from OSM, but we're working toward a solution that emphasizes distinctions while not removing data. The trails exist, after all, but they're not maintained and their use can cause harm.
-
Comment from GerdP
okay, in that case I suggest to tag them with access=no. I am a co-developer of mkgmap,
a software which converts OSM data to Garmin img format, and I am pretty sure that almost all ways which are tagged with unusual highway=* are considered to be usable for all vehicles unless access=no
or similar is used. That's why I don't like the usage of special highway values. You should not expect data consumers to know implicit rules. My first idea reg. "social trail" was that it describes some kind of teaching while walking ;-) -
Comment from danrademacher
Adding "access=no" is a good idea -- I'll do that in the next few days. We'll also put together a wiki post about the tag so discussion can happen there. We were intentionally trying this in a small area on a few trails to see how it would work. Thanks for your comments!
-
Comment from GerdP
okay, please consider also to use something
like highway=path,path=social_trailLooking forward for the discussion on the tagging list...
-
Comment from GerdP
I don't see any progress here. What's your current opinion about this rarely used tagging?
-
Comment from danrademacher
Yes, time got away from me. I changed jobs meanwhile, but fortunately, I am now doing more parks and trails work, so I should be able to focus on this topic again in the next month or so and come to a resolution.
Ways (17)
- Happerberger Ridge Trail (375002931), v1
- Happerberger Ridge Trail (101307990), v10
- Liberty Trail (282711072), v3
- Summit Fire Road (158303445), v3
- 169663361, v2
- 158297231, v4
- 283274039, v2
- 280952905, v2
- 101307983, v2
- 305715438, v2
- 101307986, v3
- 158296586, v7
- 279491160, v2
- 284563246, v2
- 284562871, v2
- 158297232, v4
- 39226261, v7
Nodes (1)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |