[Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

[Greg Troxel]

Kevin Kenny <kkenny2 at nycap.rr.com> writes:

> This isn't a matter of "get off my lawn." It's a matter of "there's no
> promise that there's a path there at all."

I think you're making a separate argument, that when there's some
maybe-path that's indistinct, and not clearly followable, then probably
the mapper should decide that it doesn't exist and not map it.  If
that's being done out of a desire to accurately map the world, I suspect
everyone is fine with that.

The case being discussed is when there is a path on the ground, and it's
just as obvious and actually there as many other paths -- but the
authorities don't want it used.   There are such paths around me, and
the authorities have told me they don't want them on maps :-)

I think most of the commentary has been along the lines of "What if
there were no rule prohibiting the use of these paths, and no official
discouragement -- would the desire to suppress them be different?"  It
seems to me that the entire discussion arises from people not wanting
maps to show some paths even when the paths are there.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 180 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20160326/51e86cdf/attachment-0001.sig>