On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 7:53 PM, A.Pirard.Papou <[email protected]> wrote: > maybe add the key "informal"=yes to the path? I do this for "spontaneous" > ways and it is also documented in the wiki: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal > > And the other suggestions, many thanks, sorry for not listing them all. > I'm looking for a general feature, not only a solution to my particular > problem. > > A non-way is not the best word to describe my idea and I also do not feel > comfortable with it. > It's sort of a "secret [winding] little passage" that one must follow on > demand.
You mean a shortcut? http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shortcut > So, more than "informal=yes" (which I don't understand well), it would be a > straight "exists=no". > How could it be mapped, sort of dotted line, so that the human understands > that he may follow a route for which there's no path under the conditions > otherwise described (no cars in a meadow)? This is like the landcover/landuse debate So basically we have: 1. existing roads that are official 2. existing, but non-official paths 3. routes that exists without paths (for hiking, buses, tour jeeps, beachbumming etc) 4. shortcuts that exists with and with out paths. I think if there is something that you are ment to walk on, then you can add a way, I don't think you should use a relation just because highway=footway is a bad fit. I've added a highway=footway where there was only grass, because the only other way was to take a ~5km detour, but as I said I was feeling very dirty when I did this (surface=mud). So to restate, I don't want to use a "relation" instead of a "way" to draw a way where people are supposed to walk, even if it's a short cut. /Erik _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
