[Tagging] Difference between "yes" and "designated" in access tags

[Greg Troxel]

Jass Kurn <jasskurn at gmail.com> writes:

> Need to point out for others reading this than I am in England, and
> influenced by what I believe was likely the original intent of these tags,
> that is mapping of the "English/Welsh, rights of way"
>
> I've always treated " foot|bicycle|horse=yes, as a means of showing I
> confidently believe with evidence available that access is allowed. Done
> with regard to the defaults for tag (eg don't add when highway=footway)

sure

> Designated & Permissive allow me to tag in more detail if evidence is
> available to support tags

yes, but they are totally different

> I use ''designated" for where there is a demonstrable "right of access" eg
> Specific recognisable signage, online usable data, etc, which demonstrates
> a legislative or contractual, rights of way.

I think this is off.  To me, designated means both

  =yes (there is a legal right of access)
and
  there is some official blessing that of all the usable modes, the
  trail is somehow intended for that particular one

IMHO there can be no designated without an underlying =yes.

> I use "permissive" for the common British situation of ways being provided
> on private land, and where the owner has displayed signage to inform the
> public that the way is "Permissive" and not an English/Welsh "Public Right
> of Way". (This should block the private way becoming a "right of way"
> through continuous use.)

That seems super country specific, but I think it's fine.

I see permissive as

  there is no legal right of access, but *it is known* that the
  landowner does not object

which is different than

  It's not a crime to walk because there is no "no trepassing sign".
  (In the US, trespassing is generally not a crime, but only "trespass
  after notice".  In my state, it technically only applies to developed
  land, but ~nobody understands or believes that.)

which should definitely not be signed permissive.


Then, there's a vast grey area.  Driveways for individual houses are
properly signed "acess=private" because

  1) there is no legal right of access

  2) there is no known permissive situation

  3) there is a social convention that while there are generally not "no
     trespassing" signs, that unpermissioned use outside of narrow
     social conventions is not ok and will lead to a no trespass order
 
People often think '=private' requirs a "no trespassing" sign.  That's
wrong; it is simply that there is no legal right of access.

A further complexity is a store parking lot (carpark), or a shopping
center (multiple stores with shared lot/carpark).  Technically this is
private, and there is no legal right of access.  But the culture is such
that public access is completely acceptable, with a few "no distribution
of literature" exceptions that are often signed.  We tend to tag those
are =customers, which is close enough.  Even though that's often
customers/permissive, more towards customers for actually parking, and
very much permissive for walking.

> issues I have are separating "legal right of access" and the ability to
> actually use the way. A common problem with British/Welsh rights of way
> which do not have to be managed to to allow all foot users

access= is 100% about permission.   Physical tags are for physical
situations.

Perhaps you need width=0, or something.

I think the basic issue is that osm does not really have  practice of
tagging 'legally there is a right of access  but there is no passable
path'.  My town has such things; easements laid out but just brush.