[Tagging] Mapping nonexistent paths

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Sun Mar 21 22:32:52 UTC 2021

I think this issue is also addressed in the footway=link proposal:

For pedestrians, there are many places where an area is crossed while only
an entry point and an exit point exist. There may or may not be a physical
path. I count the presence of visible entry points and exit points as
verifiablity of the path that most pedestrians will take. On unpaved
surfaces, usually you can see a trail where most people walk, though it may
be weak or even disappear e.g. when it rains.

Peter Elderson

Op zo 21 mrt. 2021 om 23:10 schreef brad <bradhaack at fastmail.com>:

> A nonexistant path shouldn't be mapped.
> On 3/21/21 12:22 PM, Seth Deegan wrote:
> Should nonexistent paths (paths with no indication of usage) that are only
> mapped for suggestive routing purposes be mapped with *informal=yes*, or
> another tag like *virtual=yes*?
> See this Wiki discussion
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:informal#Features_that_do_not_exist>
> lectrician1 <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Lectrician1>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210321/4179a7f7/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list