There are signposts on the beach only at the access ways. Makes no sense to place further signs to follow a stretch of beach, so you wil not find those. Trail_visibility: you could add that, but surface=sand on an area of sand already says it it all. I've suggested this once on the dutch forum, and the answer was: What do you mean, not visible? It's a perfectly visible long and wide sandy path. Can't miss it even if you wanted to!
; Op do 20 dec. 2018 om 01:05 schreef Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com >: > On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 10:27, Sergio Manzi <s...@smz.it> wrote: > > Why don't you use trail_visibility=no on the sections of path which are > invisible as they are just plain beach? Routing will not be affected (it > will work...). > > I agree. I think trail_visibility=no + surface=sand (or whatever the > beach surface) is essential so that data consumers know this is just > walking on the beach and there is no special infrastructure there like > a boardwalk. > > In my opinion, it would be better to not add the highway=footway > unless it's market out with sign posts or something, ideally routing > engines would be able to route across a beach area from footways that > connect to either end, but most routing engines struggle with routing > over areas. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Vr gr Peter Elderson
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
