[Tagging] sidewalks

[Anthony]

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:48 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/8/30 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:
>>> The definition you quoted said: "way or path". In the aerial images
>>> posted here there was neither of them. If was just grass. No way.
>>
>> I'm not sure which aerial you're referring, but I also don't see why a
>> strip of grass wouldn't qualify as a "way or path".
>
> http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-34.854348,138.535446&z=22&t=h&nmd=20100614

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=-34.854348,138.535446&sll=28.0725,-82.548614&sspn=0.010981,0.01472&ie=UTF8&ll=-34.854396,138.535563&spn=0.000638,0.00092&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=-34.854406,138.535454&panoid=A6Al6CHbuWxD2rMFncHI3A&cbp=12,354.25,,0,21.14

Same answer?

>>> You can actually see informal footways/paths quite well in aerial
>>> imagery. If they are there and you have good resolution images.
>>> Usually the grass is only beneath then, because grass doesn't grow where
>>> people (or animals) walk (frequently). It disappears even if it was there before.
>>
>> Well, all the places where I'd tag a footway are places where people
>> walk.
>
> +1. People can walk on almost every grass covered area, but I wouldn't
> invent footways just because you can walk there, I would tag them
> where people actually do walk.

Okay, but you're the only one who brought up tagging footways in the
middle of nowhere, just because there's grass there.

Grass is a legitimate surface for a footway.  That doesn't mean that
all grass is part of a footway, any more than all asphalt is part of a
road.