<html><head>
</head>
<body><div>On Tue, 2020-12-01 at 17:55 +0100, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Given "in the field they may also look like trails." it seems to not be solvable.<br></div><div><br></div><div>How mappers are supposed to distinguish them from normal paths?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Humans are animals, mammals to be a bit more exact.</div><div><br></div><div>The non-human paths I have had most experience of following are made by sheep in the mountains.</div><div><br></div><div>On reasonably level ground they appear very similar to human made paths, and is tempting to follow them.</div><div><br></div><div>The problems come as the ground gets steep, and as you no doubt aware sheep have small feet which are relatively close together.</div><div><br></div><div>The result is that the paths can be deep ruts, that a little more than 10cm wide, not wide enough for a pair of human walking boots to pass.</div><div><br></div><div>Little point mapping the narrow parts, but the parts that look like it may be a path are worth mapping to indicate that they are not, and the next unfortunate bobble hatted walker will know not to follow them.</div><div><br></div><div>Phil (trigpoint)</div><div><br></div><div class="-x-evo-signature-wrapper"><span class="-x-evo-signature" id="none"></span></div></body></html>