On 25.10.2010 22:29, Alex Mauer wrote:
On 10/24/2010 04:30 AM, M[measured angle :-p]rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I inform you that I am using informal=yes for ways that are not
constructed and not maintained or signposted but are only there for
the fact that someone uses them.
That sounds to me like a good way to handle it. It would probably
apply to many highway=track ways as well.
—Alex Mauer “hawke”'
Most people underestimate that for many informal looking trails, there
are actually people caring to keep them in shape. Be it paid
trailbuilders, hunters, forestry staff or simply residents that want to
have a trail for unknown reason. There is nothing that makes a trail formal.
I got a good friend who has "built" some trails in the mountain region
where he has a summer house. Of course he wont spend more than a few
days every year, to keep the trails in shape, and they look like they'ld
be just trails from animals. But then that's just how trails develop.
For some of those trails, the tourism offices decided after time, to put
signs to make them more used, and thereby kept in shape without paying
trailbuilders - but that doesn't mean that those mountain trails are
maintained.
There is no such thing as informal. I know some trails which are looking
pretty big, and forestry stuff tries each year to destruct them, while
mountainbikers and hikers do their best to repair the destroyed trails
(usually destroyed by putting many trees over them, but then take a good
saw and axe and with a few buddies after one day you can clear quite a
few km's to rebuilt the trail).
From the outside, it makes much more sense, to classify the shape of a
way, but informal simply ads no valuable information.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
