<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 29/09/2019 19:37, Edward Bainton
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAGJTS22Xcazng9iaOfLzUiWrfJWZ-O9tK1cQf9Z3i+AihiynOg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div>Do I mark a track, with all it's passability tags, and then
tag horses & foot=designated? That acknowledges the track,
but disregards the documentation <a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway#England_and_Wales:_Public_bridleways"
moz-do-not-send="true">here</a> which says "<span
style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">Public
bridleways should be tagged:<span
class="gmail-Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><tt
dir="ltr" class="gmail-mw-content-ltr"
style="font-size:1em;font-family:monospace,monospace;direction:ltr;background-color:rgb(238,238,255);line-height:1.6"><a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway"
title="Key:highway"
style="text-decoration-line:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);background-image:none"
moz-do-not-send="true">highway</a>=<a
class="gmail-mw-selflink gmail-selflink"
style="text-decoration:inherit;color:inherit;background-image:none;font-weight:bold"
moz-do-not-send="true">bridleway</a></tt><span
style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span
class="gmail-Apple-converted-space"> </span>and<span
class="gmail-Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><tt
dir="ltr" class="gmail-mw-content-ltr"
style="font-size:1em;font-family:monospace,monospace;direction:ltr;background-color:rgb(238,238,255);line-height:1.6"><a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation"
title="Key:designation"
style="text-decoration-line:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);background-image:none"
moz-do-not-send="true">designation</a>=public_bridleway"</tt> . </div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I've edited the relevant wiki page to make it clearer:<br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway#England_and_Wales%3A_Public_bridleways">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway#England_and_Wales%3A_Public_bridleways</a></p>
<p>If something is designated as a public bridleway add the
"designation=public_bridleway" tag. This is separate to the
highway tag - that might be highway=bridleway, but as you point
out could very easily be highway=track or highway=service. I've
also seen examples that on the ground really aren't substantial
enough to be called highway=bridleway, but are legally signed as
that.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAGJTS22Xcazng9iaOfLzUiWrfJWZ-O9tK1cQf9Z3i+AihiynOg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div>2. </div>
<div>What should I do with <a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/729709956"
moz-do-not-send="true">this footpath</a>, which appears on
OSM and also on <a
href="http://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=511004&y=298838&z=115&sv=511004,298838&st=4&ar=y&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf&dn=577&ax=511004&ay=298838&lm=0"
moz-do-not-send="true">the OS map</a> as a public footpath. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There is absolutely no indication of it on the ground: no
beaten path, no fingerboard, no break in the hedge at the SW
end (it wouldn't need one at the NE end, open country). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Do I delete as probably sourced from OS, or leave as it's a
right of way?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>That's a good question. Cambridgeshire is listed at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors</a> , so I suspect
that the data from the council would be licence-appropriate for
OSM per
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility</a> .</p>
<p>If there's no physical access through a hedge I'd definitely
ensure that there isn't a "highway=footway" running through a
hedge.</p>
<p>Given the complicated history of the ways involved, it isn't
necessarily the case that someone "copied from OS"; they may just
have seen a public footpath sign at one end and tagged the way
there, unaware that the footpath crossed several roads and went
through a hedge. I've certainly done that in the past. In fact:</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAGJTS22Xcazng9iaOfLzUiWrfJWZ-O9tK1cQf9Z3i+AihiynOg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(For some reason the history shows me as the author of
Version #1 of that path, but actually it long predated my
edits in this area. iirc the history, before my edits
elsewhere apparently over-wrote it, showed it as added several
years ago)</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It is possible to find out what happened here. Here's a query
for the ways in mid-2015:</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MHs">https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MHs</a></p>
<p>and here's one for mid-2016:</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MHt">https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MHt</a></p>
<p>The way that was there before many, many splits is
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/210211088/history">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/210211088/history</a> , and the edit
that joined it to the Peterborough road was
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35688401">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35688401</a> back at the end
of 2015 (the changeset comment helpfully says that the GPS trace
used was from June 2015). Obviously back then it's quite possible
that there was signage and no hedge.</p>
<p>Best Regards,</p>
<p>Andy</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>