<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I have noticed that in Worcestershire this is being done by user <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/nickpop">nickpop</a>, who seems to be systematically going through the paths and tracks in the area adding access=no to public footpaths and access=private to anything else. The change sets do not state the source of the information. I suspect that it is not survey<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>One side effect of this is that public footpaths a no longer rendered on the Standard map in bright red and have become almost invisible.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Can someone review this users work and make a definitive ruling on the desirability of these changes? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Jon Pennycook via Talk-GB [mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org] <br><b>Sent:</b> 30 July 2022 21:53<br><b>To:</b> Talk Gb<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Talk-GB] Access tag on public rights of way<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Personally, in the absence of signs, I don't put a general overall access tag on rights of way. I usually (based on a survey) tag rights other than those included in the Right of Way are private rather than no, and sometimes permissive. I don't like blanket edits where people assume that because something is a public footpath for example, all other access is forbidden (it isn't necessarily, there may be permissive access for some modes and residents will often be allowed access, corresponding to something like vehicle=private or destination). <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On highway=footway, I tend to see tags like vehicle=no as redundant - the default access for highway=footway does not include bicycles or other vehicles <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>For example, there are a number of public footpaths on tracks/service roads near me where cyclists have permissive access and motorists have destination access - automatically tagging every non-designated mode as "no" would not capture these. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On the other hand, assuming that bicycles have access on a permissive bridleway without a survey is dangerous - I know of at least one that I have had to change because the signs denied access for cyclists. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Jon<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Sat, 30 Jul 2022, 20:15 Alex Wardle, <<a href="mailto:awardle.comp@gmail.com">awardle.comp@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><p class=MsoNormal>Hi,<br><br>I was looking at recent changes around the Worcester area and noticed<br>that a user has been changing some of the footpaths and bridleways and<br>adding access=no tag to them whilst leaving the a foot=designated tag.<br><br>I was just wondering if this is considered the correct use of the<br>access=no tag and if this should be added to these ways?<br><br>Thanks,<br>Alex<br><br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Talk-GB mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></div></body></html>