[OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
mikh43 at googlemail.com
Sun Nov 29 14:13:06 GMT 2009
Btw - no need for highway=grass, why not use highway=path (or =footway, see
previous message) + surface=grass (which seems well-established).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony [mailto:osm at inbox.org]
> Sent: 29 November 2009 04:30
> To: Roy Wallace
> Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Roy Wallace
> <waldo000000 at gmail.com> 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
> > 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.
More information about the talk