On Sat Dec 20 2014 at 10:10:53 AM Kevin Kenny <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have what may be a seriously weird question. > Doesn't sound too weird to me :-) > > In at least one place (44.07447,-74.28335, says GPS) the trail crosses > an unnamed tributary of Pine Brook on a beaver dam that is visible in > aerial images. https://flic.kr/p/pFf3TV Hikers who don't quite believe > that the trail would do such a thing have created a use path extending > up- and downstream that peters out in both directions. So - What's > appropriate tagging for a way that uses a beaver dam? > highway=service;service=beaver;pedestrian=permissive (assuming that it's nice beavers) More seriously: Does it really matter that the way leads over a beaver dam? On the linked picture it looks like a regular trail to me (no wet feet or anything) and I'd just tag it as such. I guess in addition you could tag the beaver dam itself. > In several other places, destroyed bridges either serve as landmarks > https://flic.kr/p/oJrAXF or even have had the stone of their footings > repurposed to create a ford https://flic.kr/p/poN2vf . Is there > tagging that makes sense for this situation? > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ford Is it considered acceptable to delete ways that came in from TIGER and > appear never to have existed? Absolutely!
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
