<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/08/19 09:37, Paul Allen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPy1dOLp8gdDkaD3KPsUzxCvDw0SO8WNvXBK1dCRGwT-r5V4Wg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 00:13, Warin <<a
href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">One hiking trail I know of the locals
usually go bare foot, not only because of poverty but also
terrain. <br>
So the foot ware would be a guide, not a rule. <br>
Are all foot routes paved? I would think so. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Around my town there are several footpaths that are
paved. But they're not walking routes,</div>
<div>just short cuts between locations. Pretty much
indistinguishable from a sidewalk apart from</div>
<div>not being at the side of a road.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Around the outskirts of my town there are also several
footpaths which, at least in part, go</div>
<div> across fields. Again, not walking routes, just short
cuts. They could probably be incorporated</div>
<div>into walking routes but, as far as I know, nobody has
done so.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Are these 'signed' routes? If not then they fail that test for a
'route'. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPy1dOLp8gdDkaD3KPsUzxCvDw0SO8WNvXBK1dCRGwT-r5V4Wg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Then there are footpaths which are part of walking
routes. Usually unpaved, cutting across fields</div>
<div>or through woods. And then there are hiking routes where
the surface is uneven, or stony, or</div>
<div>boggy, or you have to ford through a stream.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> Hiking route may have sections that
are 'paved', mainly to prevent damage to the environment.
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>True. Some of the walking and hiking routes I know of
have a section, or sections, along a road.</div>
<div>But you choose footwear for the worst conditions you'll
encounter on the route, not the best.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Going by the footwear was only a rule of thumb, but it
seems like a useful one. There are going</div>
<div>to be exceptions, but if you need hiking boots, and even
fit people need a walking stick to keep</div>
<div>their balance, it's better to call it a hiking route than
a walking route. Similarly, if you could do it</div>
<div>wearing slippers without any discomfort or getting wet
feet, it's probably a walking route. It</div>
<div>seems like useful guidance to mappers rather than not
defining any distinction at all. But</div>
<div>maybe somebody can come up with something better.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes.. 'something better' is always useful. I do like the footwear as
a guide, but not as a rule. <br>
</body>
</html>