[OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Anthony]

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The following, IMHO, are not sufficient reasons to tag
> an area of grass as a path: 1) you walk on it; 2) you think it would
> help routing. Analogy: 1) Just because you sit on something, that
> doesn't make it a chair; 2) Just because you want others to be
> recommended to sit on it, that doesn't make it a chair.

Bad analogy.  If I look in a dictionary under "chair", there is no
definition which says "a thing that is sat upon".  But if I look under
"path", there is a definition which says "a route, course, or track
along which something moves".

>>> A path, IMHO, is something
>>> that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it (i.e.
>>> usually you can *see* that it resembles a path).
>>
>> Usually, or always?
>
> Um... so the question is, if you can't see a path, can it still be a
> path?

No, my question was whether you really meant to use the word "usually".

> Answer: No, because otherwise your mapping is not verifiable:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability.

The fact that an area of land is within a legally defined right of way
is verifiable.  The fact that it is suitable for travel is verifiable.
 The fact that people use it for travel is verifiable.

I suppose in that sense I can *see* that it resembles a path.

> Oh, and if you like highway=grass, use that!

I like highway=path.  More general.