Btw - no need for highway=grass, why not use highway=path (or =footway, see previous message) + surface=grass (which seems well-established).
Mike Harris > -----Original Message----- > From: Anthony [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 29 November 2009 04:30 > To: Roy Wallace > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs... > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Roy Wallace > <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
