James Ewen wrote: > Most of the walking and bicycle trails in the city don't even > have signs on them, let alone the ones I have tracked and > added in the back country. We have paved bicycle trails > with no signage... those wouldn't pass the test.
Could I point out there is a little linguistic confusion here? :) For those of us on this side of the pond, the word "trail" usually refers to a waymarked recreational walking route following existing paths and roads. For example, in the UK, we have a whole series of "National Trails" such as the Pennine Way and the Thames Path. For people on the side of the pond with hamburgers and maple syrup, however, a "trail" just means a path. If you read the thread in the knowledge that Clifford, James, and Richard W are from the hamburger/maple syrup side of the pond, and David and Dave aren't, then it magically makes sense. David and Dave are saying "this doesn't get special recreational-walking-route status unless it has signposts". James and Richard W are saying "this is just a path". As Clifford is from hamburgerland, the "just a path" interpretation is probably the more relevant one. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Adding-Walking-Trails-tp6346416p6352060.html Sent from the Newbies mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
