There is another problem with animal paths completely apart from
permissions: they may lead you to nowhere.
(years back I nearly got lost in a labyrinth of footpaths in the dense
macchia in Corsica. They were well visible and wide, but just high enough
to walk for children, and were actually
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 7:03 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 18:08 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano <
> zelonew...@gmail.com>:
>
>> +1, it's unreasonable for mappers to be mind readers about the intent of
>> land managers. Either the public is allowed to walk on these
On Wednesday, 2 December 2020, Jo wrote
> > your feet may sink into the mud
Wear wellies.
though and beware the BULL :-)
Make sure you know if it a recognised dairy breed or not.
Phil (trigpoint)
--
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging
Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 18:08 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano <
zelonew...@gmail.com>:
> +1, it's unreasonable for mappers to be mind readers about the intent of
> land managers. Either the public is allowed to walk on these paths, or
> they are not. There isn't really a middle ground here.
>
>
>
> +1, same here for wild boars. “animal path” does not provide sufficient
> information what kind of object it is, because these paths are quite
> different depending on the animals. The mentioned cow paths are probably
> always suitable for humans, while others may not.
>
> your feet may sink
sent from a phone
> On 2. Dec 2020, at 05:43, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Wombat pads are wide enough to follow but the animal is lo to the ground and
> can go through what to a human is inpenatrable scrub - some is simply to
> thiic and interwwoven and some has sharp needle
On 2/12/20 6:41 am, Philip Barnes wrote:
On Tue, 2020-12-01 at 17:55 +0100, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
Given "in the field they may also look like trails." it seems to not
be solvable.
How mappers are supposed to distinguish them from normal paths?
Humans are animals, mammals to
On Tue, 2020-12-01 at 17:55 +0100, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> Given "in the field they may also look like trails." it seems to not
> be solvable.
>
> How mappers are supposed to distinguish them from normal paths?
Humans are animals, mammals to be a bit more exact.
The non-human
On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 11:59 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> Dec 1, 2020, 00:44 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 00:39 Uhr schrieb Lukas Richert <
> lrich...@posteo.net>:
>
> I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are
Dec 1, 2020, 00:44 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 00:39 Uhr schrieb Lukas Richert <>
> lrich...@posteo.net> >:
>
>>
>> I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many trails in
>> my area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom used by people
Given "in the field they may also look like trails." it seems to not be
solvable.
How mappers are supposed to distinguish them from normal paths?
Nov 30, 2020, 20:41 by s8e...@runbox.com:
> Hello everyone,
>
> With the Belgian community, we have been in contact with Natuurpunt, our main
>
sent from a phone
> On 1. Dec 2020, at 05:03, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> humans=no?
looks like an access tag, so it is not suitable unless this is the legal
situation.
Generally we might not be able to have a solution with a single tag, because of
the differing legal situation. In some
sent from a phone
> On 1. Dec 2020, at 04:31, Minh Nguyen via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> Regardless, informal=yes seems especially appropriate for these animal-made
> paths.
*if* the path could be useful for humans (i.e. you can walk there),
highway=path and informal=yes may be suitable,
Vào lúc 16:32 2020-11-30, Warin đã viết:
I would not encourage the use of the tag 'animal' as it is a real mess!
See taginfo for the variety of values that have no coordination. Example
animal=wellness ... for which animals and then the problem of tagging
that... terrible.
animal=wellness is
Maybe animal_path=yes|cow|deer|...
Where the values cover the various animals that create paths visible on imagery.
--
Sent from my phone, please forgive my brevity.
> On Monday, Nov 30, 2020 at 1:15 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick (mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com)> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at
On 1/12/20 11:06 am, Casper Van Battum wrote:
I believe access=no would apply for this specific situation, in the
sense that the organization mentioned doesn't want people walking on
the trails. I'm guessing it's either protected land or private
property these trails are on. Since the
I believe access=no would apply for this specific situation, in the sense that
the organization mentioned doesn't want people walking on the trails. I'm
guessing it's either protected land or private property these trails are on.
Since the organization mentioned they didn't want to put up "no
On 1/12/20 10:36 am, Lukas Richert wrote:
I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many trails in
my area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom used by people - but
it is allowed for people to walk on these and they are sometimes
significant shortcuts so allowing routing
Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 00:39 Uhr schrieb Lukas Richert :
> I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many trails in my
> area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom used by people - but it is
> allowed for people to walk on these and they are sometimes significant
> shortcuts so
I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many trails in my
area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom used by people - but it
is allowed for people to walk on these and they are sometimes
significant shortcuts so allowing routing over them in some cases would
be good.
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 21:45, Brian M. Sperlongano
wrote:
> Note that there is already an animal=* tag for describing things related
> to animals, so that probably shouldn't be overridden. Perhaps a
> combination of foot=no and animal=yes satisfies what we're describing?
>
Or not:highway=path
Note that there is already an animal=* tag for describing things related to
animals, so that probably shouldn't be overridden. Perhaps a combination
of foot=no and animal=yes satisfies what we're describing?
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 4:16 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2020
On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 06:54, Yves via Tagging
wrote:
> Creating a new tag for this is not a bad idea.
>
Not a bad idea at all, even if just to stop them being marked as paths, but
what would you tag them as?
Footpaths etc are currently tagged as highway=xxx, which really isn't
appropriate for
Adding a `note=*` would not really help much here. The issue is that the
paths show up on the maps viewed by people. If we want to to give
platforms the ability to not render animal paths, they should be easy to
filter out. You can't do that with a generic note. I'm not sure if
something
Creating a new tag for this is not a bad idea.
Yves
Le 30 novembre 2020 21:27:33 GMT+01:00, Seth Deegan a
écrit :
>You could add a `note=*` to every element. You should probably contact the
>mappers of that region and explain to them not to add them.
>
>I agree that in this case, mapping
You could add a `note=*` to every element. You should probably contact the
mappers of that region and explain to them not to add them.
I agree that in this case, mapping animal tracks is *especially *necessary.
If someone isn't going to map it now, they're going to do so in the future
(as you've
Hello everyone,
With the Belgian community, we have been in contact with Natuurpunt, our main
national nature conservation organization. They are slowing using more and more
OSM and recently came to us with the following remark.
"Some mappers have added paths that are not actually real paths
27 matches
Mail list logo
