On seconds thoughts, as your original comment was on the last two sections on the approach to Rochester, please provide how you would see the names and reference for them.

Best wishes

Hi

Would you please reply with the schema you are proposing.

I suggest the name and reference for first 2 or 3 sections of the Buffalo to Rochester stage.

Regards

@julcnx
Thank you.
I think moving about 180 degrees and 12 time zones is a record for me.
Regretably, I had got quite fed up, as I was follwoing a route I hope to walk in 2025, of what I saw as so, so many egregious previous mappings. Here, compared with the aerial imagery, paths had been mapped through natural woods without a visible path, in the water and so on. Over many miles.
I just needed to work at something that I could make a real difference with.
I had taken a few minutes time-out, and when I returned ...
It was a one-off situation.
And, hopefully, will not be repeated.

Again, thank you for reminding me.
Again, thanks for

I am sisncerly indebted to you for raising the difficulties you saw.

I commend you to review the various sections as presented in Way Marked Trails.

Empire State Trails website
This is the source I use.
Consistently using common codes EST, EC, HV and CV are analgous to using US, NY and CR for road numbers.
On the Way Marked Trails cycling page I note codes such as 11, EST and EC are used. Of course these are from the ref field.
The EST website has references such as CV01 or EC28.
I have used these in the reference field and added them to the name, to assist with understanding.

I have also added as much material from the EST website as OSM will allow. The point being to ensure users of the material in OSM can leverage of the EST website.

So, rather than create some new structure, references amd names.

I have also picked up your observation about searching.

I am testing various alternatives names.

These alternatives are taken from the EST website.

So far, results are promising.

Looking forward to your comments on how the cycling code names are in agreement with the EST website.

Thank you again for your observations.

I am quite content to consider how the various sections and stages that Empire State Trails use should be shown.

I continue to look at how the Empire State Trails are signed. So far the dominant sign appears to be the orange rondel. This is often supplemented by an arrow showing direction.

At Green Island, for those approaching from Albany, the supplementary signage is the word west or north under a rondel at the point of divergence.

Occassionally, when the EST website inidcates stage point I see a supplementary sign using the word trailhead.

I am not sure these would qualify for use with the key name=*

I have also look at the the terminology shown on the cycling pages for EST EC.

There I note a code number from 1 to 4.
I also note the names for each intermediate section (Fair Ground and Dewitt) do not seem to be names in the EST website as section or stage names.

I would appreciate your comments on how the names used for cycling along the Erie Canal relate to the EST website.

Hi and thanks for your question
The separate stages come from the Empire State Trails website. I am currently adding in the details taken from those 28 stages from Buffalo to Green Island and have currently completed to Rochester.
The Empire State Trails website gives the structure or sequence that I am following. OSM, when discussing walking, cycling and other routes suggests WayMarkedTrails.org is a useful browser tool.
From my limited observations so far, on the ground there is only the circular Empire State Trails marker with indicators for direction – arrows that point ahead, left etc.
Here is a link that shows the four regional groupings from the EST website.
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=11486087&type=relation
On selecting “Sections” you should see a structure to the information shown.
EST = Empire State Trails – the source of the information
H = hiking
Erie Canal in clear – the three letter acronyms (ECa for example) that follow indicate
EC = code for Erie Canalway
a = Buffalo to Rochester
Selecting any one of those four sections will display the stages that EST show in their website.
On selecting ECa and then “sections” you will see your example of ECa08 amongst others.
Here is a direct link for the Brockport to Rochester stage
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=17814735&type=relation
This faceted code (ECa08) enables the structure of the Empire State Trails website to be emulated in Open Street Maps.
A limit to any faceted code in OSM is the upper limit of five characters that WayMarkedTrails will display.
At a big picture level, ADT American Discovery Trail, as shown in OSM, goes some of the way to using a faceted coding structure.
I hope that answers you question as to where the example you gave fits into a bigger picture.
Best wishes

Jass, thank you for your thoughtful and considered comments.

I have walked many routes in Scotland, England and several other European countries, and contributed to OSM many details from those experiences.

Two years ago I looked at the LEjog gpx files and the resulting route. As I recall made considerable use of Public Footpaths in England: from a practical viewpoint (mine and others) the Public Footpaths are not realistic for long distance walking.

A long distance walk that has been in my sights for many years has been my version of a Lands End to John O'Groats: my version would connect almost all of my family connections.

A very large part of my route would include existing routes north from from Bristol, with only three in Scotland, for my way to achieve John O'Groats.

In Cornwall and Devon I first considered using the south west coastal path route and added accordingly some year ago.

Last October I spent a week in Cornwall, Devon and Somerset looking at walkable long distance possibilities towards Bristol.

Last week I deleted my earlier efforts using SWCP and made a route through to Exeter for my personal use.

Having obtained the resulting GPX files I have now deleted all of the LGa route details.

I am aware of the need to map routes that have been reliably published and verified and believe I have complied in other cases.

I hope my explanation fully answers your questions on this matter.

As you appear to have some oversight of walking routes, I have some observations about details for a well established route around London that I walked in October.

These are of a generic nature, using that routes details as an example.

Please advise if I can discuss the generic aspects with you.

Alwyn

Short answer = “no.
Highway=pedestrian is not appropriate in this setting
The operator's map describes these as "main paths".
The same operators map makes a feature of "Downhill Walk" from 100 m asl high Cable Car terminus (south centre of the Gardens) to Tree House then northeast towards the CBD. This 2 km walk almost exclusively uses these very broad ways (as segments are called in the operators map).
The highway=service road tag lets OSM mirror the operator’s map.
Roads tagged here in this way are typically asphalt paved and about 3 metres wide.
There are many paths that service vehicles can access in the normal course and which I have left as highway=path.
OSM requires contributors to first mark what is there (in this case a road) and then mark who/what has access.
In this case, tags such as "Track/Land access" might be an alternative when supported by tags that make such a highway visible.
In this case, tags such as "Path" are considered unhelpful as the operators “main paths” will be “lost” amongst all the other paths, enjoyable as they are in their own way.

Thank you for your comment.
I have reworked the detail to avoid that element.
While the proof of the pudding ..., I suspect your intervention has resulted in a better outcome in that area.

dear contributors

As I have said, with respect to this matter, I am away from my usual resources until late November/early December.

I have some appreciation of the issues you raise.

I have undertaken to work with those who tell me they are having signs installed, along with other material for walkers.

In this recent stream there is mention of some other issues and a discussion. Can these please be listed so I can begin to consider them in December, when I will have access to my usual resources.

Best regards, Alwyn

Forgot to add:

My perception of the GPX files is they having walked and or cycled the route.

thank you for your observations

I am working with a group based in The Netherlands.
They tell me they are covering the route with signage, simmer to what I see each day on Via Francigena.
I have also walked a Saint James Way in Spain and see many informal signs.
And I have just completed a section of Via Francigena with no signage at corners, for example.
What I do see is many pilgrims consulting their smartphone to find/check the way forward.

I will have an email conversation with The Netherlands based group, to confirm my understanding. Regrettably, that may take time. Partly because, as I explained, I have minimal resources with me.

Would please correct the one mistake.

Would you please also explain your connection to these decisions.

Alwyn

Again, thank you for your comment.
My lack of German has led to that.

You will understand the need for any route list to have every part with a name. And not to have the default "unnamed highway" or similar. In a route list, that is not helpful.

If this section of the route is not part of a named road,, track, whatever, then so be it.

As I do not have an editing facility for the next two months would you please remove the inappropriate name for me.

Regards, AlwynWellington

I do not have a facility in German, sorry.

thank you for your observations

For me the issue is one of navigation.
If any part of a route does not have a name, then a route list will display "unknown highway" or similar.
Using a route list when walking through a park, the example you give, it is helpful to know that is where you should be.
Like using a road (driving, cycling or walking) the name won't say exactly which part of the road you are on.
So with paths through parks.
Some walks may have a name signposted.
There seems to be every reason why that name should be entered in the database.
And if a walk is not given a specific name, then the name of the park..

In summary, I am not suggesting paths in every part should be named. Just those that form part of a route.

Be pleased to continue the discussion.

Post script - I am currently walking in Franxe, Switzerland and Italy. And soon I will be walking in Scotland, Wales and England.
Because of this I have no editing facility until I return home in two months.
I hope to make it start on Sultans Trail in 2024 or, more likely, 2025.

I understand bloat.

You have appreciated I am doing this for routes that I have an interest in.

And expect to walk one day.

And you appreciate that a route list of paths prepared from OSM that does not name the street is useless.

Is there a middle way here?

There do not seem to be a large number of walking routes through Hungary.

If the rule were relaxed a little to have paths etc that are marked for a walking (and cycling) route permitted to be named.

Best wishes, Alan

Thanks
Today I arrive in Auckland by InterCity
Later this week I travel overseas.
AT trip planning say their buses go to a numbered stop that differs from what OSM says. And then only when I dig deep.

My purpose was to invite local contributors to have ALL Auckland bus stops in OSM align with the number at the stop itself and with what AT says in their trip planner.

My concern (different numbers quoted for the same thing) was not just about the stops at AIA

Kia kaha

The wiki says that all highway= elements (roads, pavements etc) have name= tags.

I am not aware of a wiki that says names can only be applied where highway=road / motorway.

My practice of many years is having route lists that are usable for all.

And you will note, by and large, I name pavements etc that are named in a route.

In this case Via Francigena.

Come mid September 2023 my intentions are to walk through Pontarlier using that route.

When creating a route to drive along, the route list the names recorded of the highways used.

But a route using footpaths that are part of the roading infrastructure the route list will say "unnamed" or similar.

Of course, where a walking route uses a named road, then of course, that route list will include the name of that road.

I have a long standing practice of adding names to paths.
1) this puts the names into route lists for walkers
2) OSM provides for this

Please provide an explanation why this is not done in Hungary.
A reference to the discussion would be helpful.
Regards, Alwyn