[OSM-newbies] Fwd: Re: Re: Footpaths again

[Mike Harris]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: Re: [OSM-newbies] Footpaths again
Date: 	Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:46:57 +0000
From: 	Mike Harris <mikh at delco.idps.co.uk>
To: 	newbies at openstreetmap.org



I agree - I would tend to use highway=footway + surface=paved (or 
whatever it is) + designation=permissive (unless you know that they are 
public rights of way - unlikely in the circumstances you describe) + 
bicycle=permissive if so signed or if you know that this is the case. 
Your local Highway Authority will have maps showing the public rights of 
way in your area - and these are often  posted on the web. The mapping 
of these maps is likely to be copyright (OS) but the data on the status 
of the paths is usually public domain (check with your HA).

Mike


On 19:59, Richard Welty wrote:
> On 3/18/10 2:46 PM, Molescott wrote:
>>
>> I struggle with  'public footpath'. One of these goes through the 
>> park and is signed at each end - no problem with that either.
>> In order to alter or otherwise interfere with a 'public footpath' I 
>> believe there has to be public consultation, presumably a legal 
>> requirement?
>> The other unsigned paths within the park can be altered with no 
>> notice given. Although public in that every Tom, Dick or Harriet can 
>> use them, aren't they really 'permissive'?
>> How do I tag these paths?
>>
> since you don't know about bicycling on these paths,
> don't make any references to it.
> i would think either
>
> highway=footway
>
> or
>
> highway=path
> footway=yes
>
> if it should turn out that cycling is prohibited, you can go back and 
> add bicycle=no
> explicitly.
>

-- 
*Mike Harris*

-- 
*/Mike Harris/*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/newbies/attachments/20100319/1c60db4a/attachment.html>