On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > <dieterdre...@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. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
