There is another problem with animal paths completely apart from permissions: they may lead you to nowhere. (years back I nearly got lost in a labyrinth of footpaths in the dense macchia in Corsica. They were well visible and wide, but just high enough to walk for children, and were actually trodden by escaped bovines or wild boar (?). I really got scared - I had no compass and no provisions)
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 13:19, Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonew...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 7:03 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 18:08 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano < >> zelonew...@gmail.com>: >> >>> +1, it's unreasonable for mappers to be mind readers about the intent of >>> land managers. Either the public is allowed to walk on these paths, or >>> they are not. There isn't really a middle ground here. >>> >> >> >> There is middle ground. For example in many German nature reserves, you >> may enter the reserve, provided you remain on the foot paths. >> > > We are saying the same thing. access=yes for the allowed paths, access=no > for anything else. The topic of discussion are unofficial/social/animal > paths in places where there are established paths intended for visitors. I > suppose if there is a middle ground you could muster access=discouraged, > but the documentation says this is for signed roads, not unsigned paths. > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
