I totally agree with Wouter's list. And I leave the most edge cases in OSM, even when they are only tagged with note=Weg XXX (no highway tag). But the ones that are just crossing through houses, through backyards, etc. I remove. Also the ones through fenced fields are deleted. Again, it's about ways that are tagged as note=xxx, not as highway
regards m p.s. Joost, with "they" I mean whoever is mapping those non-existing (at this moment) paths as note in OSM. On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Wouter Hamelinck <[email protected]> wrote: > >> That is true but I'm missing a general mapping strategy, there is some >> widespread tag misuse IMHO. > > > IMHO this is valid for any kind of mapping, even where there exist clear > guidelines. > >> It's really a binary thing, either it exists and verifiable in the >> field, or either it's not. We don't record historic buildings that have >> disappeared, same applies to those roads that are gone and merely exist >> on paper. > > > It is not as binary as you would like to. Roads don't reappear > spontaneously. Paths do. Sometimes limited periods of the year. > Buildings don't move spontaneously. Path certainly do. > > The binary cases are > - visible and accessible year-round: in OSM > - invisible and totally inaccessible (e.g. going through building): not in > OSM > I think we can all agree on that. > > It gets a bit more tricky in the border cases, and there I add my opinion > - visible and inaccessible (e.g. due to fence): in OSM, with access=private > or whatever is appropriate and mapping the barriers > - sometimes visible and year-round accessible: in OSM > - visible and sometimes accessible (due to fences): in OSM and lots of fun > with the access tags > - visible and sometimes accessible (due to vegetation): in OSM. Is there by > now a seasonal tag that can be used? > - invisible and year-round accessible: in OSM (*) > - year-round invisible and year-round inaccessible (e.g. due to fence): not > in OSM (motivation: why would it be? It's no use to anyone) > > (*): this is probably the most controversial one. If the consensus is that > this doesn't belong in OSM, just walk it a few times and you are in the case > "sometimes visible and year-round accessible". Put it in OSM as such. > > Just as a description of cases where it not binary. If often pass over ways > that are in Atlas, but most of the time you don't see any path. I just > happen to know how the way crosses the field and that's how I go. Because it > is in the Atlas, I'm allowed to do so. Even when crops are growing in the > field I make my way across (**). > Sometimes I encounter footprints, so I'm definitely not the only one that is > using it. Especially during the winter a faint path may become visible. When > a group of people happened to pass a few days (or even weeks depending on > the weather) beforehand, you see a more or less clear path. Should it be in > OSM? For me that is yes. Even if you won't see anything most of the year. > (**): unless the farmer decides again to plant those thorny things that > ripped my legs open when I tried to run across them > > Joost, > I think it would be very good to put that page online (with disclaimer that > it is under discussion at the moment). You might get some heat at points > where some people don't agree, but at least it will make the discussion more > focused. > > wouter > > -- > "Den som ikke tror på seg selv kommer ingen vei." > - Thor Heyerdahl > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > _______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
