[Talk-GB] highway=track and implied access rights?

Andy Robinson Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk
Fri Aug 17 11:17:12 BST 2007


Shaun McDonald wrote:
>Sent: 17 August 2007 10:52 AM
>To: Nick Whitelegg
>Cc: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] highway=track and implied access rights?
>
>
>On 17 Aug 2007, at 10:09, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>
>>
>> Noticed that a path I put in as highway=bridleway or byway (can't
>> remember
>> which, TBH!) has been converted to highway=track. Trouble with this
>> is that
>> we lose rights of way information (does this track have public
>> access rights
>> or is it just a farm track?)
>>
>> Part of a wider issue with the growth of highway=track tagging is -
>> should we
>> show private farm tracks? My own preferences are to strongly highlight
>> paths(rights of way or otherwise) which the public have access
>> over. If we
>> should, then it would be better to tag public tracks as
>> highway=footway|
>> bridleway|byway|whatever it is, together with foot=yes|permissive.
>>
>
>If the track (or any type of highway) is private (or restricted) then
>it should be marked access=private (or any other restriction). We
>just need to show this private/restricted property property on the
>rendered maps.

I have a problem generally in putting access=private or indeed access=public
into the database because it's rare that I can be certain it is private or
public due to a lack of ability to verify. Just because it says private on a
gate doesn't necessarily mean there is no right of access in law and vice
versa, also I've come across some residential roads that say private estate
or similar but are in fact adopted by the local authority and hence are
public ROW.

I can see a need for a data disclaimer statement.

Cheers

Andy

Andy Robinson
Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk 







More information about the Talk-GB mailing list