Talk:Australia/Walking Tracks

"Unofficial" BMX tracks?

In a nearby patch of bushland, there are a number of "unofficial" BMX tracks that neighbourhood kids have made themselves, as well as an "official" walking path. The path is mapped, but should we also map the BMX tracks? --Fizzie41 (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

This is another can of worms. The fact that they are in use and likely obvious by their construction they were built (even illegally) as BMX or MTB tracks, to me means they should be mapped as such (I've previously proposed highway=path + path=mtb for this (Proposed_features/Tag:path=mtb). Without signage likely they are informal=yes. Tagging access=* is the real issue as it's usually unclear the legal status of using these paths. --Aharvey (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! --Fizzie41 (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Steps on a bush track

The above mentioned official walking path through the bushland, also has a number of spots where there are one or two steps in the path. It would be very hard to accurately map just where they are, & they also wouldn't render as they'd be too small an object. Is there any way of adding steps=yes to a track? --Fizzie41 (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I've seen steps=yes used but I don't think it's been documented how this would be any different to highway=steps. If it's just the odd few steps here and there I'd usually not map those steps and instead use a combination of smoothness=* and wheelchair=*. If there are longer section of steps (even if only loosely built from stones or the standard metal rod in the ground holding up a plank of wood) then I'd map this whole section as highway=steps + surface=unpaved. --Aharvey (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

& again! --Fizzie41 (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)