<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16809" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Richard</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Thanks for this ... very helpful - a few comments
-</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>1. Path: I would prefer to use highway=footway for a
path that has (almost always illegally) not been reinstated across a ploughed
field IF I know it to be a public right of way, e.g. from the black and
yellow waymarks that people like me put onto public footpaths! (After all, after
intervention this path may well get restored to its legal condition!) Similarly
for other situations where the path is not good or clear but IS waymarked
as a public footpath. I would tend to minimise usage of highway=path - and use
it mostly for paths that are not well-defined and not known to be a right of way
- typically in rural or upland areas. I would not add foot=yes - as, if I know
this to be true, I would then be using highway=footway. Most rural
public footpaths are not easily seen on the ground - but most are waymarked at
intervals; I want to give these highway=footway status to distinguish them from
informal paths - which are also numerous in undeveloped and unfarmed rural
areas.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>2. Footway: I broadly agree. I would also use this
for any way that is clearly unsuitable for higher levels of user (cyclists,
horses, etc.) and known (e.g. from signage or otherwise) to be a public footpath
- urban or rural. I would add foot=yes.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>3. Bridleway: I only use this for ways that I know to
be a public bridleway (and thus have rights for pedestrians, horse riders and -
almost always - cyclists). This is because the word 'bridleway' has legal
meaning (in England and Wales) - unlike 'footway'. If I do not know (from blue
and yellow signage or otherwise) that it is a public bridleway I would tend to
use only highway=track and add a tracktype= tag to indicate the surface for the
benefit of cyclists etc. (I don't wish to imply a legal right by using the tag
'bridleway' unless I know this to be true). I would add foot=yes, bicycle=yes
(unless known to be untrue) and horse=yes.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>4. Cycleway: In the countryside I tend to use
this for paths that are clearly physically suitable for, and are signed for,
cyclists and seem on the ground to have been primarily created as a cycle route
but are not known to be public bridleways (where I would give precedence to
highway=bridleway as a more well-defined category). I would also use it in urban
areas for appropriately blue signed cycle paths and also for dedicated cycle
tracks more or less alongside roads etc. (As said before I would not regard
ncn/rcn etc. as a reason for highway=cycleway - I would use a relation for
this). I would add foot=yes (unless known to be untrue) and
bicycle=yes.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>5. Track: Broadly agree - unless the track is known
(e.g. from signage) to be a public bridleway - in which case I would prefer
to use the more well defined highway=bridleway. I also usually try to add a
tracktype= tag (grade1 to grade5) as per the wiki to give a bit more information
about the surface (and thus suitability for various types of user) - where I
have recorded or remember this from the survey. I would not add
foot/horse/bicycle=yes etc. unless known to be true.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>6. Byway: I also use the tag highway=byway for tracks
that are known, e.g. from plum or red signage or from finger posts (or from
personal knowledge in my area) to be a 'Restricted Byway' (RB, the term that has
replaced 'Road Used as Public Path' or RUPP - no longer exist) or a 'Byway Open
to all Traffic' (BOAT) - again adding tracktype= if possible. I would add
foot=yes, horse=yes, bicycle=yes. For a RB I might add motorcar=no,
motorcycle=no if it looked as if it could be driven but was signed as an RB
(i.e. motorised traffic banned). For a BOAT I would stay silent on
motorcar/motorcycle= unless I had specific local knowledge as the use of a BOAT
by motorised traffic is defined on a case by case basis.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>In summary:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Despite the length of my response, I do not think we are
very far apart. Where there is no signage (and no other non-copyright way to
determine legal status) I would be in pretty close agreement with you. Where
there is additional evidence regarding legal status I would generally try to use
this - in particular (a) to add the information that a path is in fact a public
footpath (highway=footway, foot=yes) rather than just a 'path' (highway=path),
(b) to avoid highway=bridleway unless I had evidence that it was a public
bridleway (because 'bridleway' - unlike 'footway' - carries legal implications),
(c) to use 'track' in a parallel way to 'path' - i.e. to distinguish a
track that is known to be a public right of way of some kind (by using
highway=bridleway or highway=byway), (d) to add the use of highway=byway for
known RBs and BOATs.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I am obviously a bit biased by being one of the people who
spend time putting up those multi-coloured waymarks on public rights of way of
various kinds!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I have found this exchange very useful and will be
continuing to strive to get the balance right between 'basic physical status'
and 'rights' information drawn from signage on the ground (or local
knowledge)!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=281045708-26032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Happy mapping!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Magneto color=#0000ff size=2>Mike Harris</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Richard Mann
[mailto:richard.mann.westoxford@googlemail.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> 24 March 2009
13:18<BR><B>To:</B> osm<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [OSM-talk]
highway=cycle&footway<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Mike asked for examples of "basic physical status". </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>1) Path - poorly-defined path (either because of low usage, or because
there's no advantage in taking any particular line, or because someone's
ploughed it)</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>2) Footway - well-defined, but not suitable for horses, due to accesses
(stiles / kissing gates), and vulnerability of surface to damage from heavy
animals. Most UK country footpaths fall into this category. Category also
covers urban made-up ways from which cycles are specifically banned. Some are
designated public footpaths.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>3) Bridleway - well-defined, and usage by horses accepted, with gates for
access. Surface unlikely to be made-up, and likely to be unusable by cyclists,
especially in woods, and especially after rain. Routing a bike on such a way
wouldn't be clever. Most UK country bridleways fall into this category, but
not urban ones.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>4) Cycleway - surface made up and fairly smooth. Probably no objection to
horses using it occasionally, though situation likely to be unclear unless
it's legally a Bridleway, or there's some horse-unfriendly gates. Possibly
occasional access for farm vehicles / cars. Legal designation could be just
about anything - so long as the landowner doesn't mind. Might be a case for
narrow cycleways to be coded as cycle&footway, to show you will probably
have to cycle differently, and to avoid claiming undue ownership/priority for
cyclists.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>5) Track - surface made up though may be a bit rough, and may have grass
growing down the middle. Probably no formal access restrictions, though hard
work for cyclists, and could well damage a normal car. Landowner may limit
access. Also covers forest tracks, though surface likely to be less well made
up, and prone to being impassable for some vehicles in wet conditions. Legal
designation could be anything or nothing.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The general point is that legal designation and physical status don't
always align.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Richard (not the one responsible for
Potlatch)</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>