Talk:Tag:route=hiking
learning routes
There is currently no way to mark that the hiking route is learning route. --Jakubt (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be growing usage of educational=yes wich is in line with pilgrimage=yes.
Hiking route-markers
I wish to start a discussion due to my experience gained while hiking the E4 Long Distance European Path in Cyprus and the Via Algarviana in Portugal.
Both routes can be viewed in Lonvia's World Wide Way marked Trials.
Like all waymarked trails, they have route markers to aid the hiker as he/she progresses. At the moment there is no exact OSM-tag to define such route markers so I have entered them into the OSM database as information=guidepost, tourism=information, hiking=yes and e.g. name=E4: These route markers are mostly not guideposts but at least they are rendered in OSM.
Now, this method does not exactly reflect the situation on the ground. Such route markers can be attached to anything and be anything from a pile of stones, paint on a stone, to well-manufactured metal or plastic shields on poles, walls, fences, etc. They can show the direction of a route at a junction or they can be simply there to give confidence to the hiker that the way is part of the route. They can also indicate where off-route hostels, sustenance or first aid can be obtained.
To the long-distance hiker, this is all very valuable information and the hiker can navigate to any marker with the appropriate equipment.
Another point is that the OSM data could aid the route operator to maintain the route markers if the status were to be recorded by hikers. On my tours, I have found them to be damaged, burnt by forest fires, fallen, missing, pointing in the wrong direction, misplaced and of course, vandalized.
Example of a damaged route-marker burnt in a forest fire
6343732899
6343732899
However, before we create a proposed feature I would like a discussion on this topic, as I am quite sure I have not thought of everything and any improvements from the OSM community would be welcome.
Example of possible additional attributes. Maybe too many!
route_marker
- osmc:symbol
- direction
- confidence
- link
- sustenance
- lodging
material
- metal
- wood
- plastic
- stones
- paint
attached_to
- lamppost
- fence
- wall
- pole (can be any type of man made pole)
- post
- boulder
- rock
- ground
- gate
- tree
- bush
- guidepost
- building
- traffic_sign
- tower
status
- ok (default)
- damaged
- fallen
- missing
- wrong_direction
- misplaced
- vandalized
operator -not required as it is in the relation attributes
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeisenbe (talk • contribs) 04:18, 11 January 2020
- For appropriate visibility, you should formulate your suggestion as a proposal and announce it in the tagging mailing-list and appropriate forums.
- I suggest, to replace your status-tag with appropirate Lifecycle_prefix methodology. Roland5 (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Good idea and very helpful, if there are only a few markers and you might be searching for the next one. You could use information=route_marker, if it's a simple pole or paint spot, and add any information you like. Although some of your proposed tags, like osmc:symbol=*, might better fit to the route relation. --GerdHH (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Aside from the obvious use for hikers, route_marker are extremely important for taggers. Especially with the E4 on Crete I observe that some people include every lovely path, completely ignoring the "official" and waymarked trail (e.g. neither the Samaria gorge nor the Pachnes ascent are part of the E4). Tagging the route_markers might help to clarify the situation. --GerdHH (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Unname Routes
The name tag should only be used for a name assigned by the operator of that route.
Many routes, especially local routes, may not have a name. In this case, a mapper should resist the urge to invent a name. It is perfeclty ok to have an unnamed route. You may add a description or use from- and to-tags. This approach keeps separte real, official names from user assigned descriptions. If not kept separated, a renderer or other data consumer will not be able to tell them apart afterwards. Roland5 (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- I fully agree with this. Currently, name is in the wiki under "useful". You could add this warning to the explanation of "name" on the route=hiking wiki page. --S8evq (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Most 'made up names' are descriptions so the use of description=* should be encouraged. Warin61 (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Distinction between route=foot and route=hiking
I think the distinction between route=foot and route=hiking is a problem (currently the template says that hiking routes need hiking boots). Did someone check if the tags are really used differently? My impression is that route=foot is more British and route=hiking matches American English. Also, here in Indonesia the local people walk barefoot on routes that are very difficult for me even with hiking boots. --Jeisenbe (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- In addition to being subjective, the distinction can create confusion when dealing with the hiking networks of local communities. Many communities rank their routes with difficulty levels. If the lowest difficulty level must be tagged with 'foot' rather than 'hiking', this breaks the consistency of the network. Introducing a difficulty level would seem more logical. StC (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- For tagging "difficulty" of trails we already have sac_scale=*, which is far more precise than "boot=yes|no". IMHO route=foot should be deprecated.--GerdHH (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Routes that have different paths depending on direction and/or season
Some routes have different paths depending on direction/season. From 'public transport routes' these are mapped as separate route relations. Another option is to use the role 'alternative' making one of the options the 'main' route. Thoughts? Warin61 (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Hiking route campgrounds/huts and other add ons
Some routes have campgrounds/huts that are specifically provided for that route. Some mappers are adding these to the route relation, should there be provision for this by providing appropriate roles? If so then there must be another role for non specific campgrounds/huts/hotels etc that would otherwise misuse the same role... There are also questions of including adjacent things like pubs, cafes etc ... oh and water and shops .. the list is endless! You may infer my dislike of things other than those specifically for the route but my acceptance that misuse has to be avoided too. Warin61 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
StoryWalk / Story book trails
They're all over the place. And they even have numbered page-boards.
So we put the trails and the page (info) boards into the same relation I suppose.
Mention how to tag.
Jidanni (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Possibly route=foot. I'd use the description=* key to specify the specifics. Warin61 (talk) 08:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)