<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/09/2019 16:57, Mark Goodge wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d7d7196c-e312-c198-8b36-6a7aa0b2200e@good-stuff.co.uk">
I'm a little puzzled by one of the lines on the permissions grid
on that page. There's a line for "Legal RoW but access
discouraged", with a suggested tagging of "discouraged/private"
for pedestrians (and similar tags for other users).
<br>
<br>
Quite apart from the fact that "private" is simply wrong for any
public right of way, the use of "discouraged" for pedestrian users
seems to me to also conflict with the wiki, which suggests that
this is a functional tag (the wiki example is HGV traffic on
narrow roads). </blockquote>
<p>I suspect that the issues that they're trying to deal with here
are:</p>
<ul>
<li>Rights of way such as byways open to all traffic that have
traffic regulation orders on them because they are currently not
navigable. I've certainly seen example where a PRoW was closed
to foot, horse and vehicle traffic even though it likely wasn't
the walkers doing the damage.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Paths in moorland (where here it _is_ the walkers doing the
damage), perhaps in CROW act areas, that need to be closed
temporarily to allow heather etc. to regrow.<br>
</li>
</ul>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d7d7196c-e312-c198-8b36-6a7aa0b2200e@good-stuff.co.uk">But
public rights of way come in all shapes and sizes, from broad,
well-maintained paths to barely visible routes across difficult
terrain. If we want to tag their relative ease of use, then surely
a more appropriate tag than "discouraged" should be used. If a
right of way on foot exists, then it is, ultimately, up to the
user whether they use it or not.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Indeed - but from reading what the NT have said I don't think
they're opposed to tagging of surface, trail_visibility etc. to
enable people to make their own mind up.<br>
</p>
<p>(as an aside <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://map.atownsend.org.uk/">https://map.atownsend.org.uk/</a> does look at various
subtags on non-PRoWs and won't show some paths on that basis)<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d7d7196c-e312-c198-8b36-6a7aa0b2200e@good-stuff.co.uk">
<br>
The reason why I'm uneasy with this here, is that it relates to
similar concerns already expressed by Frederik Ramm. There's quite
a lot of NT property which is crossed by public rights of way, but
that the NT would prefer people not to use as they provide a route
onto the property that bypasses the "official" entrance. I can
understand why they'd want to do that, but I don't think it's
appropriate to reflect that in how the paths are mapped in OSM.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Indeed, but I think we'd need an example where that was
happening? I've often found myself inside an NT property "by
accident" via a PRoW that doesn't go through a main entrance, but
can't remember ever remember being prevented from using it or even
"persuaded not to". The exception is where big for-pay events are
held and PRoWs are temporarily closed - a non-NT example of that I
can think of is Chatsworth Country Fair.<br>
</p>
<p>Best Regards,</p>
<p>Andy</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>