Warn users if hw=path is a lone tag

[openstreetmap.org-user-d1g]

If highway=path used without supplementary tags (access,sac_slace,surface,smoothness) it may mean up to 6 different things in OSM ​1 ​2.

Similar to other unspecific values (barrier=yes and highway=road) users should be asked to enter more information about (sac_scale/surface/smoothness/access and other tags)

• ​http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
• ​http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:width#Estimated_values
• ​http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale
• ​http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface
• ​http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness
• ​http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility
• ​http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:obstacle#Specific_tagging - about physical barriers and practical (im)passibility per each vehicle/transportation mode

See also #11753.

[skyper]

I just did change a small unpaved hiking trail in the mountains from footway -> path, IMOH the opposite is much worser.

People tend to use highway=footway/cycleway in many cases where there less stricter access restrictions.

What should I map if I have a source for paths but without any physical information (e.g. Maps4BW) ?

[openstreetmap.org-user-d1g]

I forgot mtb:scale.

[openstreetmap.org-user-d1g]

Replying to skyper:

I just did change a small unpaved hiking trail in the mountains from footway -> path, IMOH the opposite is much worser.

Still, it is not as good if was qualified with surface/visibility and other tags?

If this trail in the mountains (with rocks, cliffs and such), then it makes sense to tag it with sac_scale=* / mtb:scale=*, isn't?

What should I map if I have a source for paths but without any physical information (e.g. Maps4BW) ?

If you don't have any physical/surface information, you shouldn't enter fake/estimated values. Survey it over time and you will get complex parts of the tail (visibility, mtb:scale) or with complicated passibility (surface, smoothness).

highway=path is ambiguous without any (visibility, mtb:scale, surface, smoothness) tags.

hw=path users (myself including) trying to differentiate them from hw=footway, but exact reason "why are they different" is simply unknown if they only use single hw=path tag.

[skyper]

Replying to openstreetmap.org-user-d1g:

Please, do not get me wrong, I understand your problems and the intention behind this ticket but I fear it is not that easy. I see two major problems in OSM-structure but both need to be addressed somewhere else:

1. the option to imply other tags (implied tags should be simply added to the object)
2. the mis-concept of bridleway,cycleway,footway and livingstreet as these values could/should be tagged with additional tags see 1..

Replying to skyper:

I just did change a small unpaved hiking trail in the mountains from footway -> path, IMOH the opposite is much worser.

Still, it is not as good if was qualified with surface/visibility and other tags?

If this trail in the mountains (with rocks, cliffs and such), then it makes sense to tag it with sac_scale=* / mtb:scale=*, isn't?

What should I map if I have a source for paths but without any physical information (e.g. Maps4BW) ?

If you don't have any physical/surface information, you shouldn't enter fake/estimated values. Survey it over time and you will get complex parts of the tail (visibility, mtb:scale) or with complicated passibility (surface, smoothness).

Sorry, but I cannot survey all paths that deep despite that I might not survey them at all but may be the next mapper coming along. I have the information that there is a path and not a track should I use highway=road for both instead of path or track ?

highway=path is ambiguous without any (visibility, mtb:scale, surface, smoothness) tags.

hw=path users (myself including) trying to differentiate them from hw=footway, but exact reason "why are they different" is simply unknown if they only use single hw=path tag.

Concerning the whole world we should ask for surface on all highway=* and I set it on every highway=*.

If we demand additional tags with highway=path we should demand them for bridleway,cycleway and footway, too.

[openstreetmap.org-user-d1g]

Replying to skyper:

Sorry, but I cannot survey all paths that deep despite that I might not survey them at all but may be the next mapper coming along.

Make sense to tag it fixme=resurvey / fixme=unsurveyed / source=Bing / fixme=double-check

Personally I was using nodes with fixme=continue for geometry-less tracks. Shape and curvature of the road matters too!

Another option is to use nodes noexit=no (in contrast to surveyed noexit=yes)

I have the information that there is a path and not a track should I use highway=road for both instead of path or track ?

Again, depends on the "path" definition. Probably path + fixme=check-and-add-more-tags.

Concerning the whole world we should ask for surface on all highway=* and I set it on every highway=*.

If we demand additional tags with highway=path we should demand them for bridleway,cycleway and footway, too.

Well I think it would make sense for some users. There no harm to tag hw=footways with paved surfaces (asphalt, stones) - many styles and OsmAnd support surface=* tag.

For now, we can make it an optional Tag Checker ruleset "Unspecific paths bridleway,cycleways and footways" and see if it gets adopted.

[openstreetmap.org-user-d1g]

... and if "legal" tags (foot/horse/bicycle/motor_vehicle) would be added right now, then they would be displayed in iD editor presets i.e. anyone can update this information, not just aware-of-osm-tagging users.