On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote: > The following, IMHO, are not sufficient reasons to tag > an area of grass as a path: 1) you walk on it; 2) you think it would > help routing. Analogy: 1) Just because you sit on something, that > doesn't make it a chair; 2) Just because you want others to be > recommended to sit on it, that doesn't make it a chair.
Bad analogy. If I look in a dictionary under "chair", there is no definition which says "a thing that is sat upon". But if I look under "path", there is a definition which says "a route, course, or track along which something moves". >>> A path, IMHO, is something >>> that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e. >>> usually you can *see* that it resembles a path). >> >> Usually, or always? > > Um... so the question is, if you can't see a path, can it still be a > path? No, my question was whether you really meant to use the word "usually". > Answer: No, because otherwise your mapping is not verifiable: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability. The fact that an area of land is within a legally defined right of way is verifiable. The fact that it is suitable for travel is verifiable. The fact that people use it for travel is verifiable. I suppose in that sense I can *see* that it resembles a path. > Oh, and if you like highway=grass, use that! I like highway=path. More general. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
