While I could place a track across each grassed area, the placement of
the track would be somewhat arbitrary.
Is there any point in trying to mark an area as walkable? In the example
link below, people can walk pretty much anywhere across the two grassed
areas, and it's only the track in between those areas which is an actual
track.
It sounds like I just mark a track, and accept that in this case I am
mapping for the renderer/router?
cheers
Tom
----
Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com
On 26/11/2021 11:48 am, Warin wrote:
On 26/11/21 7:16 am, Tom Brennan wrote:
Quick question on unconnected ways.
I've just mapped one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1006252416
Probably best viewed in edit mode with an aerial photo underlay.
This way is a physical path between two open grassed areas that
themselves have no discernible paths. So at this stage, all I have
mapped is the path, and it connects to nothing.
Obviously it would be easy enough to connect up the two ends - one to
Westminster Rd, and the other to the track near the Field of Mars
Environmental Education Centre. This is the "natural" route, and
certainly one that people walk. However, there's nothing on the ground
to suggest that I should do that.
Thoughts welcome.
Same problem where a bushwalking route uses a beach. I was told IIRC it
is ok to use highway=path with trail_visibility=no.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
