On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Not bad. But what makes that area of grass a "path" as opposed to just
> an area of grass you can walk on (e.g. landuse=meadow or something +
> foot=yes)? Is there a difference?
Well, I didn't know landuse tags were routable. And landuse=meadow
sounds to me like a terrible tag ("meadow" is not a type of usage of
land).
But I think the key difference is that the area of land is located in
a right of way. And a second key difference is that it's useful for
routing purposes.
> I tend to think "paths" should be limited to elongated areas, designed
> for or used typically for travel (other than for large vehicles like
> cars), with usually a constant or slowly varying width. There's
> probably a better definition though.
I'd say this strip of land qualifies by that definition. Length,
about 80 meters. Width: about 10-15 meters. Used quite often for
pedestrian travel (it's the way you get to the park, plus school
children regularly walk across it on their way to/from school). The
width is fairly constant.
Frankly, I don't see much point in using an area, unless you're going
to use an area for basically everything. I was kind of being
sarcastic about that. But whatever.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
