[Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible
Ian Spencer
ianmspencer at gmail.com
Wed May 26 17:43:50 BST 2010
Jerry Clough - OSM wrote on 26/05/2010 16:21:
> An interesting set of points. I've been puzzling over three particular
> cases related to this. In each case I'm aware that the tagging is
> incomplete:
>
> 1. The Park Estate <http://osm.org/go/eu8Y9GnT> in Nottingham. This is
> emphatically a private estate, with, these days, electronically
> controlled bollards gates etc for motor access. The private
> maintenance extends to retaining gas lighting and it doesn't
> <http://oliverobrien.co.uk/2010/04/accuracy-vs-completeness-osm-vs-meridian/>even
> appear in the OS meridian road dataset. However, there has never been
> any objection to people walking through the area. On the other hand it
> is not at all clear that there are any public rights of way, other
> than one which the council is currently in the process of designating.
> Although I am not sure that permissive is strictly accurate for
> walkers and cyclists, this is probably the best match, unless we have
> access=tolerated.
>
> 2. Hospital, University campus area etc. Not at all sure about the
> status of roads and footpaths in these: other than I assume that they
> are owned and maintained by the hospital or university. Again motor
> access may be controlled or there may be gates giving this
> possibility, but foot and cycle traffic are generally universally
> tolerated.
>
> 3. Unadopted roads. I currently ignore these, but would like some
> means of recording them. Whereas if the road has a private sign I will
> usually set access=private.
>
> In the first two cases around Nottingham, roads have been tagged
> highway=tertiary. This is, to my mind wrong, particularly as such
> roads are often heavily traffic calmed.
>
> I also probably tend to use access=private in a fairly English way,
> meaning that if you're told to leave you have to go, rather than
> access is impossible.
>
> In conclusion I'd like to iron out some of the nuances of the access tags.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jerry Clough
> SK53
>
1. There was a change in law in 2006 which specifically was designed to
separate the ability to acquire the right for pedestrian access (and
horse and cycle) and motor vehicle. The gist is that if an off-road
access is not documented in the 2006 definitive way, then it is now
impossible to acquire "public" rights of access for motor vehicles - and
any unconfirmed rights were lost. This in part was due to legal issues
where 4x4 drivers were illegally accessing land for such a long time
that they had managed to acquire rights. Any supposed historic right
that has not been documented on the definitive map was lost by the act.
The Park Estate situation is one where it sounds like gaining access to
the estate does not create a problem, but there has been an "easement"
as people have travelled through it and created a public right of way
over time. However, especially with the 2006 changes, motor vehicles
cannot acquire rights of access without the roads being adopted (or if
there is something in the deeds of ownership). Anyhow, it sounds like
the Park Estate is essentially a set of unadopted roads.
2. Around hospitals and so on, it is the difference between the paths
existing and the rights to use them for non-motorised access. Typically,
it seems that it is necessary for land owners to reserve their rights
through signage and intervention or rights of way evolve over a 20 year
period. However, this cannot (now) happen for motorised access.
3. Interestingly, having thought and looked around this, unadopted roads
now have a different status than they had before 2006. Before 2006 it
seems like it was possible to acquire access rights for motor vehicles,
but since then, if they are not acquired on the definitive map there is
no right. However, there is a difference in practice and right, and it
is debatable which OSM should lean to in documenting (the here and now
argument).
Andy Mabbett commented to me by email that the issue like with (1) and
(3) was that the roads were unadopted and that perhaps was the solution
- to tag them as unadopted, even if this is a UK specific solution.
Spenny
More information about the Talk-GB
mailing list