On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> An area of grass is - to me - not a path. 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). > > -1, a path is either planned and constructed (the ones you are refering to) > or it "creates itself" by frequent use (e.g. shortcuts on grass). IMHO the > latter are even more valueable to the project because they are usable but > you don't find them in other maps.
A shortcut through grass that you can see, sure! e.g. http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/18/97/189701_92c9a5d5.jpg But if you can't see it - sorry - you're not going to convince me that there is a path. If you can see some grass, sure, map that. But just being able to walk on the grass does not turn the grass into a path. Otherwise, in any area of grass there would actually be *infinite* overlapping, criss-crossing "invisible-paths". :P _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
