osm at inbox.org
Tue Aug 31 02:19:57 BST 2010
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".
>>> 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
> +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
More information about the Tagging