Love this! The reason I started the thread on the Tagging mailing list was the same, to detect “hiking trails” from smooth walkways/cycleways, which there basically is no way of doing now, even with subtags.

A few questions: 1. Your first decision is made based on “foot tag”. That means foot=designated|yes|no? But most paths have no foot tag, even if they are most likely a “hiking trail”. 2. I agree that surface is the best tag to decide whether it’s a “hiking trail” or not. But there are lots of combined footways/cycleways that are tagged highway=path, foot=designated, bicycle=designated that are unpaved (which just as well may mean compacted or fine_gravel). Would those fall into the hiking trail category? 3. I have learnt that informal=yes is to be used for any urban desire path that has come to be by people walking there, and doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with land ownership. In Sweden, for example, there’s freedom to roam and to not render informal=yes would hide a lot of urban paths that people are using as shortcuts etc. 4. The mere presence of sac_scale may not necessarily mean it’s a hiking trail. Since there is no sac_scale=no value, sac_scale=hiking may be applied to any smooth, urban footway that shouldn’t qualify as a hiking trail. 5. You didn’t include mtb:scale. With the lack of nuance in the sac_scale values, mtb:scale may be the best of the currently used tags to describe the “technicality” of the path. mtb:scale=1 or more is most likely an indication that it’s a hiking trail, unless there’s foot=no or path=mtb. But there should be a tag for hiking that gives a better nuance to sac_scale=hiking. :) 6. You also don’t include smoothness. To me, smoothness=intermediate or better indicates it’s a smooth path that is not a hiking trail. smoothness=bad or worse indicates it most likely IS a hiking trail, even though smoothness is for wheeled vehicles… But in a way, it’s easier to verify smoothness by which wheeled vehicles that can use it easily.

So yes, this is a real mess. I’m getting upset by people who don’t see this as a problem. And I do agree that we CAN add a new highway tag for hiking_trail or whatever we call it. To me, a hiking trail sounds more like a trail included in a hiking route and may exclude local forest paths that are not “hiking trails” per se, but are just simply beaten paths.

And I do agree that if keys are just code words, why do we use words like path and then translate it? Path, particularly in Swedish, means exactly what you refer to as “hiking trail” and therefore contributes to the confusion. And the wiki definition of footway is so vague that some people think it should be used for paths where they can’t take their bike (even if an MTB cyclist may do). A hiking trail is a hiking trail, whoever is able or allowed to use it and it’s a completely different entity than purposely created, urban or suburban, footways/walkways/cycleways. The confusion is that all these highway tags really can be used for any of these purposes…

You call surface a horrible tag. Horrible in the sense that too many values are being used? What could be done to improve it? I agree, although in genereal ground, dirt, earth, mud and sand are used for what we call hiking trails.

And lastly, you suggest a new highway value, hiking_trail. For one, this should have been included from the beginning. But I still see a lot of potential confusion between path and hiking_trail. To me, they are the same. Also, as has been suggested on the mailing list, there’s currently no way of saying “this is NOT a hiking trail”. Since highway=path or highway=footway may mean either, and what’s been tagged is there, the introduction of highway=hiking_trail still gives no information about these other paths, that may or may not be a hiking trail.

Your summary is great and should make the confusion clear to anyone, even though I’ve now added even more to the confusion. I’m still, however, not sure about what solution is better, given that this misuse has been going on for years. This is one of the disadvantages with an open-source, “use as you wish” tool like OSM. Nobody really has the mandate to say “this is how everyone should do” and that’s why we continue discussing this over and over again, without really getting much further…

Very interesting. I’m trying to get the elevation of different hiking routes in Sweden. Based on this research, what would be the best tool available to calculate elevation gain that is as close to reality (that is, barometric measurement from a good GPX watch, I suppose) as possible? Komoot, AllTrails, Plotaroute, Trace de Trail etc. all give very different results.

If the gpx file comes from Waymarked Trails, that is without any elevation data, then it seems like a threshold of 10m to calculate elevation gains gives a much more true number than a lower threshold for example.

To be able to mark what has been done, rather than simply “Mark as done” would be really nice. I’m working on this task: http://tasks.hotosm.org/job/307, but although it’s mainly roads I usually also map rivers/streams, villages/hamlets etc. And there may also be different detail of roads, from big roads to small paths and to be able to check what detail of highway tags has been done in a square would help to come back later to add more detail.

Cool. I’m also trying to find a good workflow for using OSMTracker, setting up different layouts for different purposes. I wish there was a way to share layouts and icons easily, it would really help many in using OSMTracker.

I’m also yet to start using Vespucci properly, sometimes it feels quicker just to add data when surveying and organise it in JOSM when back home. Although it’s easy to fall behind, having more GPS tracks than there is time to add in JOSM…

Thanks for your reply! Being fairly new to OSM I’m really excited. I haven’t heard about the Local Chapters Working Group before. Is it to set up legally registered chapters in different countries? That is, not only a community, but also a legal framework for it?

Since we’re in the process of setting up a Kenyan OSM community I’m interested in hearing more about what we should think about in that regard.

Another question: in new areas without satellite imagery, are you just adding the addresses anyway, or adding buildings using other methods than satellite imagery tracing?

DaCor: If you are using OsmPad to add house numbers, but also add other data while surveying, do you also keep Vespucci open and switch between the two? Or how do you add other data that are not addresses?

Personally I find KeypadMapper 3 a lot easier to use than OsmPad, although not as specific in placement of the address nodes.

These are great ideas. I’ve also been thinking in similar terms. It must be a lot easier to interact with local users, share ideas and principles about how to map certain features etc., as well as providing an easier entry for beginners in a specific area.

I’m currently trying to build a community of mappers in Kenya. There is a wiki page, but no real strategy of maintaining it. Then we’re thinking of setting up a mailing list. But it is indeed too difficult and confusing to sign up for a mailing list. Then there’s the forums, which is on an entirely different site and layout. And IRC (IRC what?!?), which is a great way for real-time communication, but not easy to understand for newbies. And so on and so forth.

If OSM could have local chapters/communities built in somehow, it would greatly help in catching all newbies who might disappear because of high learning threshold, to inspire each other, and to come up with a unified way of tagging certain features that are particular to that area.