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

[Anthony]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> An area of grass is - to me - not a path. 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).
>>
>> -1, a path is either planned and constructed (the ones you are refering to)
>> or it "creates itself" by frequent use (e.g. shortcuts on grass). IMHO the
>> latter are even more valueable to the project because they are usable but
>> you don't find them in other maps.
>
> A shortcut through grass that you can see, sure! e.g.
> http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/18/97/189701_92c9a5d5.jpg
>
> But if you can't see it - sorry - you're not going to convince me that
> there is a path.
>
> If you can see some grass, sure, map that. But just being able to walk
> on the grass does not turn the grass into a path. Otherwise, in any
> area of grass there would actually be *infinite* overlapping,
> criss-crossing "invisible-paths". :P
>
What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes?  That's how we represent
infinite overlapping criss-crossing "invisible-paths", like a
pedestrian mall.

On the right is a road.  On the left is a lake.  In the middle, is a
path, made out of grass.  It's probably not much wider than the road.
And only about half of it is within the right of way.