On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 5:51 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/8/28 Anthony <o...@inbox.org>: >> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:56 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer >> <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> if there is no footway, it shouldn't be tagged as such. >> >> Agreed. But what is a footway? The dictionary says it's "a narrow >> way or path for pedestrians". I don't see anything about grass being >> disqualified. > > > The definition you quoted said: "way or path". In the aerial images > posted here there was neither of them. If was just grass. No way.
I'm not sure which aerial you're referring, but I also don't see why a strip of grass wouldn't qualify as a "way or path". > You can actually see informal footways/paths quite well in aerial > imagery. If they are there and you have good resolution images. > Usually the grass is aside then, because grass doesn't grow where > people (or animals) walk. It disappears even if it was there before. Well, all the places where I'd tag a footway are places where people walk. So I guess there's not a problem. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
