<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 20/12/2021 12:07, David Woolley
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:353c07d0-41ae-aa9c-838d-e596f6948602@david-woolley.me.uk">On
20/12/2021 11:52, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>First - thanks Richard! That's a really useful overlay. It's
interesting seeing where (in well surveyed areas) there are
differences. Alongside a river near me where levees were added
around 1970, the on-the-ground signs follow a path above the
levee, but the "rights of way" data either predate that or are
below the levee.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:353c07d0-41ae-aa9c-838d-e596f6948602@david-woolley.me.uk">
<blockquote type="cite">highway=service (*cough* Amazon *cough*)
without adding designation= or access tags
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
One problem I've found on that is people who religiously apply the
on the ground rule and won't accept that it is common sense that
service roads behind rows of houses are private, and they don't
need to be signposted as private to be assumed private.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>It really does help to add access tags such as foot, bicycle and
horse to things that aren't obviously public roads if known. For
example, you can't assume that a "highway=footway" is "foot=yes"
unless you know "what it is" and "where it is":</p>
<ul>
<li>"what it is" means (in England and Wales) designated
"public_footpath" or similar.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>"where it is" means whether it's in England and Wales or in
Scotland. Scotland is covered by
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.mygov.scot/scottish-outdoor-access-code">https://www.mygov.scot/scottish-outdoor-access-code</a> ; in England
and Wales it might be across CRoW Act access land (see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-access-land-management-rights-and-responsibilities">https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-access-land-management-rights-and-responsibilities</a>
), in which case "foot=yes" is implied. Also in at least
England and Wales there might be some previous legislation that
implies "foot=yes" (an area local to me is covered by
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/39691/strenshall_common.pdf">https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/39691/strenshall_common.pdf</a>
which in OSM terms basically says "foot=yes while the military
are not using it").</li>
</ul>
<p>Despite
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_your_local_legislation.2C_if_not_bound_to_objects_in_reality">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_your_local_legislation.2C_if_not_bound_to_objects_in_reality</a>
I think that it _does_ make sense to map "obviously private"
things as private (e.g. a track that leads from a locked gate only
to one farm, with no other signage).</p>
<p>It also makes sense to add e.g. "foot=yes" to something also
tagged as "designation=public_footpath" so that data consumers not
familiar with every usage of "designation" around the world can
know the access rules without having to infer them.<br>
</p>
<p>Best Regards,</p>
<p>Andy</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
</body>
</html>