<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Optimistically proposed and prematurely mapped routes can be a
real problem - I've had one supposedly going across school playing
fields (Bridgnorth) and one with barbed wire and big "keep out"
signs near Weston-super-Mare. The latter has apparently been
planned for 10 years but the land owner's "over my dead body"
might be almost literally when it gets built according to locals.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>They shouldn't make it onto the map until they exist on the
ground - and I wonder how they did (your example and my WsM one).
In Bridgnorth I made the mistake of believing a sustrans PDF - OSM
shows a footpath round the playing field (correct) and a gap in
NCR45 (incorrect, it goes along North Gate; I should be able to
fix that from my tracklog)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/115073493#map=15/52.5378/-2.4115&layers=C">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/115073493#map=15/52.5378/-2.4115&layers=C</a></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I'd apply some caution updating all paths even in a single local
authority's parks. They often encourage it in some parks but not
others - a per-park basis might be suitably cautious unless
they've published something more general. Even with blanket
permission I wonder what they expect when it's physically
difficult (kissing gate etc.)<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13/01/2021 15:36, Simon Still wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D109C25B-7FEB-414D-9A75-C343A59CCCDC@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
I have a similar ongoing ‘debate’ around Brockwell Park In
Lambeth.
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.4502/-0.1099&layers=C"
class="" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.4502/-0.1099&layers=C</a></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">The bylaws still prohibit cycling. However, the
signs at the entrances to the park say ‘Please cycle responsibly
and give way to pedestrians’ and the council encourage cycling
in the borough </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Some of the paths were previously tagged as "cycle
route” on the basis of some very old ‘London Cycle Network’ maps
for a route that was never actually implemented. Later maps had
ambiguity about status - the outer path was shown as a different
line to the others but with no reference in the key! </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I was going through removing all ‘route’ tagging (as
I dont’ believe it has that formal status or enough grounds to
exist in any real form - no signage, markings etc) and updating
ALL park paths (except those few where cycling is specifically
prohibited) as</div>
<div class="">- highway=footway</div>
<div class="">- bicycle=permissive </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">As that represents the most accurate legal status
AND is correctly repressed as cycle able in the most common
cycle map layer - dotted blue line rather than red for the one
path I’ve so far missed (the mess on southwest corner are simply
lines mowed in longer grass and probably shouldn’t be shown) </div>
<div class="">And that ‘permissive status’ means it is routable
but not shown as a *route* (blue shading) </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.4502/-0.1099&layers=C"
class="" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.4502/-0.1099&layers=C</a></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On 13 Jan 2021, at 14:54, Chris Hodges <<a
href="mailto:chris@c-hodges.co.uk" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">chris@c-hodges.co.uk</a>>
wrote:</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class="">It's the "implicitly" that makes it tricky!
I've seen examples in Swindon and Telford as well, in
both cases for very good reasons where the road
equivalent isn't very suitable. At least if the
council put up a sign pointing bikes that way it
should be clear, but such signs are all too often
vague, misleading, or contradictory<br class="">
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13/01/2021 14:28, SK53
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAELijW8AFYQN50sX4Nqt9EqCONyH0zz3Xvngs2E6-bPKSf_7LQ@mail.gmail.com"
class="">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">I'd think it's not uncommon for the
council, as landowner, to either explicitly or
implicitly make an exception to the by-laws. I
know several multi-user paths around Nottingham
which are only designated as public footpaths, but
have been incorporated into major cycle routes
involving path resurfacing and other
infrastructure works (notably The Big Track).</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Jerry<br class="">
</div>
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 13 Jan
2021 at 14:21, Steven Hirschorn <<a
href="mailto:steven.hirschorn@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="">steven.hirschorn@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">There's no sign
making a clear case either way. Apparently the old<br
class="">
park signs had a "No cycling" provision, but not
the new ones.<br class="">
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>