<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I tend to agree with Martin on this one, though with a caveat.</p>
<p>A map traditionally is a usefully stylistic guide to what is
there, not an engineering drawing.</p>
<p>The caveat being that with ability of digital, (versus
traditional paper), maps to hid detail, I see OpenStreetMap
tending to be an engineering drawing over (a long time) and that
is a laudable goal.</p>
<p>Practical thoughts:<br>
</p>
<p>I, for example, map abandoned moorland dry stone walls with
breaks on a best effort but not squeakily perfect basis to show
that the wall is going to be navigable without climbing and
potentially damaging it.</p>
<p>From the practical push back to Martin's idea, I suggest a
practical solution is to map small sections with a high sac_scale.
Preferably in places where that is likely to be the actual case.
FYI, the Australian community is also discussing adopting the <strong>Australian
Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)</strong>, which I believe
would be more applicable to most parts of the UK than SAC scale.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/recreational-activities/walking-and-camping/australian-walking-track-grading-system">https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/recreational-activities/walking-and-camping/australian-walking-track-grading-system</a><br>
</p>
<br>
<p>Mike<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2022-02-06 03:53, Martin Wynne
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:201cf794-1de6-d75d-e2d3-a728e7c2ddfc@85a.uk">On
05/02/2022 15:27, David Woolley wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 05/02/2022 15:06, Martin Wynne wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">How about removing a few yards of it
somewhere in the middle, or wherever it becomes the least
distinct on the ground. It would then appear as two dead ends
and not be routeable over.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
That would be tagging for the renderer. Moreover, validation
tools might highlight the error, and armchair mappers might then
reinstate the missing section.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Everything I ever suggest is dismissed as "tagging for the
renderer".
<br>
<br>
I have never understood what is so terrible about that, given that
the object of the exercise is to create a MAP (the clue is in the
name OpenStreetMap) which hopefully will be useful to folks using
it. The name is not OpenTechnicallyPerfectGeographicalDatabase.
<br>
<br>
If this path is a genuine hazard to inexperienced walkers, perhaps
you could go out and physically rough up a section of it so that
it is no longer visible on the ground?
<br>
<br>
You could then justifiably remove a section of the path from the
map, on the grounds that it doesn't exist on the ground.
<br>
<br>
Which is more important - life and limb or a perfect database?
<br>
<br>
Martin.
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Talk-GB mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>