[OSM-newbies] Adding Walking Trails

[Richard Fairhurst]

James Ewen wrote:
> Most of the walking and bicycle trails in the city don't even 
> have signs on them, let alone the ones I have tracked and 
> added in the back country. We have paved bicycle trails 
> with no signage... those wouldn't pass the test.

Could I point out there is a little linguistic confusion here? :)

For those of us on this side of the pond, the word "trail" usually refers to
a waymarked recreational walking route following existing paths and roads.
For example, in the UK, we have a whole series of "National Trails" such as
the Pennine Way and the Thames Path.

For people on the side of the pond with hamburgers and maple syrup, however,
a "trail" just means a path.

If you read the thread in the knowledge that Clifford, James, and Richard W
are from the hamburger/maple syrup side of the pond, and David and Dave
aren't, then it magically makes sense. David and Dave are saying "this
doesn't get special recreational-walking-route status unless it has
signposts". James and Richard W are saying "this is just a path". As
Clifford is from hamburgerland, the "just a path" interpretation is probably
the more relevant one.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Adding-Walking-Trails-tp6346416p6352060.html
Sent from the Newbies mailing list archive at Nabble.com.