[Talk-GB] The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire

[Gregory]

Should it not be highway=track, access:motorcar=no (access:foot=yes, etc if
desired).
That lets me know I can cycle 2-abreast, it is fairly firm (track grade
could also be specified), and if I fall off then an ambulance driver can
follow his specialised satnav to get to me. I have had a situation a few
years ago where OSM & some adrenalin helped me get an ambulance on the C2C,
the printed cycle map we had was unhelpful.

I'd also make a point about route relations, but that has been done already.

Greg.


On 16 December 2012 08:26, Andy Robinson <ajrlists at gmail.com> wrote:

> A trail such as Monsal (and many others that follow disused rail lines) is
> normally accessible by vehicle for maintenance purposes. It's not open to
> the general public as it's a leisure route for walkers, cyclists and horse
> riders (though I can't recall ever seeing a horse on there in all the times
> I've visited).
>
> Cheers
> Andy
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave F. [mailto:davefox at madasafish.com]
> > Sent: 16 December 2012 01:07
> > Cc: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire
> >
> > On 15/12/2012 18:44, SomeoneElse wrote:
> > > A couple of weeks ago I spent a very cold day walking up and down part
> > > of the Monsal Trail - essentially from Little Longstone to the A6.
> > >
> > > It has been remapped since the tunnels reopened, but is in places a
> > > bit of a hodge-podge, so I propose to standardise it a bit as follows:
> > >
> > > o Instead of the mixture of highway=cycleway, highway=path and
> > > highway=track that exists currently, replace with highway=track
> > > throughout (it's all wide enough for the trail maintenance folks' Land
> > > Rovers), but with appropriate access tags (which is I think* foot and
> > > bicycle=yes or permissive, and probably horse=yes or permissive,
> > > vehicle=no) and also surface and lit tags.
> >
> > I don't know this route; do motorised vehicles have access to all of it?
> > If not I don't think highway=track should be used throughout. According
> to
> > the wiki it is accessible to all vehicles.
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Track.
> >
> > >
> > > o Where the name tag incorporates both a tunnel name and a trail name
> > > (like with way http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/116465140)
> > move
> > > the tunnel name to some other tag.  Although I'm normally sqeamish
> > > about having paths labelled after the most well-known trail that uses
> > > them, in the case of the Monsal Trail I'm tempted to leave the
> > > "name=Monsal Trail" labelling, because that's what the locals would
> > > refer to it as.
> >
> > Route relations were invented to specifically solve this problem. The
> Monsal
> > Trail is a route that uses these ways. Other named routes could also use
> > them, now or in the future. Putting the route in a relation avoids naming
> > clashes. See the numerous NCN routes as examples.
> >
> > >
> > > o Some of the ways that formed the old Monsal Trail before the tunnels
> > > reopened are still present in OSM (and in some cases far from obvious
> > > on the ground).  Where these are tagged as bicycle-appropriate but
> > > clearly aren't I'll remove that tagging;
> >
> > Again, I don't know the specifics, but just because the route has be
> moved
> > does that mean you can't cycle on the old ways?
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> > Dave F.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>



-- 
Gregory
osm at livingwithdragons.com
http://www.livingwithdragons.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20121217/076003ee/attachment.html>