tag corrections*

Hi Dan! I noticed your recent edit on a track from which these nodes around here got deviated from the original position: node/6795255110/
I've been there about 1 month ago, made my updates and enhancements, so I'm pretty sure that track was set accurately since i aligned to the IGN im sat and Strava heatmap. Your edits were done 28 days ago, little time after me. Since it's a well establish permanent track with almost solid material grade2, i doubt that the track was changed. So i'm asking you if you observed a real change of the position or did you plot with you GPS trace? If you aligned to a im sat photos, i think your background was not aligned because on my side Strava's heatmap and any im sat i have are aligned with accuracy.

About this path way/724559228/ i didn't observe any when i was there, i passed by several times on that spot. My activity: https://www.strava.com/activities/2680080842 So is it fresh new, like the soil has got recent activity, soil is not compacted?

Thanks in advance for confirming me your observations. :)

Hello! Careful you had disconnected some ways... Example: node/6578695363/history

+ tag additions

relation/1611024
and
way/477932013

+ tag corrections were done

One empty line was left for further splitting ~1700 nodes is still too close to the 2000 limit

relation/10048956
and
relation/1611024

+new elements, tag corrections

+ new elements

That said, i have my inclination in favor for the tag scheme using highway=path because it's still a "one human" large highway type feature, the extra specification for a "via ferrata" which is just a difficulty by using the path, can be set with just one extra tag "via_ferrata_scale=*".

Hi! It is not meaningless, path is a valid approved tag and it applies since its OSM's Wiki definition corresponds to reality. I do agree though that vie ferratas are a more specific case, that's why i made an overlap) but highway=via_ferrata is (or was?) still a proposed feature under progress of a consensus. I see its status has been put very recently "in use" but it has never been voted (? weird). When a new tag is proposed, the best is to make sure that it doesn't duplicate with another one or can be incorporated to another one, making sure it has a tag scheme corresponding to OSM's usual habits... see modularity. This has been much in debate since often via ferratas are part of a hiking route, in the proposition it even correlates with hiking T4, T5 & T6. I know also that some people were trying to integrate treetop climbing to the tag scheme structure. I do agree both are similar activities and should be considered together to avoid creating unnecessary duplication.

As i said, i noticed that the "via ferrata" page has been updated very recently and still talks about the issue of using highway=path. Again that's why i did not edit the existing elements but i created new overlapping elements. I am just trying to figure out which is the best way for everybody. I wanted to discuss it, but wanted also to think about it first.

+ tag corrections

+new elements

OK! I thought that a different bus route would have a different reference then to avoid confusion. Thanks!

Hello! Why tag this element as highway footway + "foot=no"? It's illogical. If the way is not accessible at all, use the general tag access for all "access=no" or "access=private" since anyway a footway is by essence mostly for pedestrians. By seeing how straight you have plotted it and how large it is on the map, isn't this maybe a track?

+ new elements

+ updates, deleted obsolete elements

+ tag additions/corrections

+ tag corrections