[Tagging] As the crow flies

Erik Johansson erjohan at gmail.com
Tue Feb 26 14:24:27 UTC 2013


On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 7:53 PM, A.Pirard.Papou
<A.Pirard.Papou at gmail.com> wrote:
> maybe add the key "informal"=yes to the path? I do this for "spontaneous" ways and it is also documented in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal
>
> And the other suggestions, many thanks, sorry for not listing them all.
> I'm looking for a general feature, not only a solution to my particular problem.
>
> A non-way is not the best word to describe my idea and I also do not feel comfortable with it.
> It's sort of a "secret [winding] little passage" that one must follow on demand.

You mean a shortcut?
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shortcut


> So, more than "informal=yes" (which I don't understand well), it would be a straight "exists=no".
> How could it be mapped, sort of dotted line, so that the human understands that he may follow a route for which there's no path under the conditions otherwise described (no cars in a meadow)?

This is like the landcover/landuse debate So basically we have:
1. existing roads that are official
2. existing, but non-official paths
3. routes that exists without paths (for hiking, buses, tour jeeps,
beachbumming etc)
4. shortcuts that exists with and with out paths.

I think if there is something that you are ment to walk on, then you
can add a way, I don't think you should use a relation just because
highway=footway is a bad fit. I've added a highway=footway where there
was only grass, because the only other way was to take a ~5km detour,
but as I said I was feeling very dirty when I did this (surface=mud).

So to restate, I don't want to use a "relation" instead of a "way" to
draw a way where people are supposed to walk, even if it's a short
cut.

/Erik



More information about the Tagging mailing list