On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote:
> > > I'm not sure what the legal status of a "social path" is, either. What > does "this path is considered unauthorized" mean? Does it mean "we'll > have police escort you elsewhere if we see you here", or does it just > mean "you can't sue us if you trip and break your leg here"? > At least in the US there are a lot of what could be called "social paths", that is informal paths that have been created not by any intentional effort, but simply by repeated use. In some cases it is illegal to continue to use these, in many cases, there are no objection to using them. In addition to my objection that this tag breaks things, I don't think it conveys what the proposer intends, namely that "authorities don't want people using this path.", i.e access=no, or access=discouraged. I support protecting sensitive natural habitat, I just think we should use the tags that have already been established and seem to fit this purpose. It is if we are no longer tagging what physically exists, but rather how it came into being (i.e through repeated use as opposed to intentional construction). Shall we re tag some tracks as "highway=old_logging_road" because that is how they came into being? Mike
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
