[Tagging] Mapping nonexistent paths

Bert -Araali- Van Opstal bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com
Mon Mar 22 15:09:26 UTC 2021


On 22/03/2021 15:22, ael via Tagging wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 04:06:37PM -0600, brad wrote:
>> A nonexistant path shouldn't be mapped.
> Justification? That seems just dogmatic. A virtual path (or some
> equivalent) solves a longstanding problem with routers failing to cross
> accessible open ground.
>
> If someone can walk across a space in a safe and legal way, a "path"
> comes into existence, at least in the abstract.
>
> I do think that "virtual" rather than "visibility=no" conveys that
> situation more clearly.
>
> ael
So are you actually saying we should map "virtual", "non-visible", in 
essence non-verifiable things ?
Map for the router?  A router is a piece of software, some less some 
more sophisticated, the more sophisticated ones could suggest where to pass.

All routers are used by humans, mostly with a map, if I as a human 
decide to use a less sophisticated one I can look at the map or at the 
location where I am to decide where to pass.

What is next ? We add tags that say the virtual path is not accessible 
by less mobile people because there is a small ditch. I have to add 
jump=yes, access:wheelchairs=no, access:children=no_ditch_to_wide, 
access:high_heels=no_land_to_soft ?

>   
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210322/64323d11/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list