Proposal talk:Virtual highway

Beaches

You are forgetting one important type of areas: Beaches. As one example long distance walking routes sometimes route over beaches. Now you occasionally see a fake highway=path mapped on a beach where none are visible just in order to map a walking route. As another example driving is sometimes permitted on beaches but again there is no permanent visible track. Access restrictions (foot, bicycle, horse, vehicle etc) for the beach can also easily be specified on a highway=virtual way. --polderrunner (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Easier scheme

Hi, I think it would be easier to use something like highway:virtual=*. This way you don't have to apply all the access restrictions and you can e.g. map routes through pedestrian squares with highway:virtual=pedestrian.
highway=virtual,access=no,foot=designated,bicycle=yes really seems like a clutter to me. —M!dgard [ talk | projects | current proposal ] 18:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.20517/3.21792 —M!dgard [ talk | projects | current proposal ] 10:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I think highway=virtual is a pretty bad idea, as it means something different depending on what area it is drawn on. highway=virtual on a parking lot is allowed for cars, highway=virtual in a pedestrian area is not. highway=virtual on the market place might be for pedestrians and bicycles and so on.

The suggestion with highway:virtual=* appears much more convincing. It allows to tag the virtual highway with exactly the same values used for real ones. No ambiguity, no need to invent new rules. --Nop (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

hiking routes

It is not uncommon to spot marked hiking routes, which goes through parking space (where there is no pavement aside). As in reallity there is no path (and therefore it should not be visible on map) you can easily go through parking space and spot the way marker on the other side of parking. (talk) 14:06, 20 Feb 2016 (UTC)

any progress on this?

Most of these comments are all quite old. I'm here because I've had several instances of needing to connect hiking routes that enter on opposite sides of their trail head parking area, or to connect a hiking route to the road used to access its trail head. Adding a "parking lane" or similar seems like overkill. Some sort of highway=virtual solution would be perfect. What's the current state of affairs for this sort of situation? --Pgf (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

footway=link and virtual=yes, etc, are discussed in Talk:Key:informal#Features_that_do_not_exist and Proposed features/highway link, separately in Proposed features/Tag:footway=link. ---- Kovposch (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)