[Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject

[Andrew Chadwick]

[... (g) stray dogs, (h) those that are included in this classification,
(i) those that tremble as if they were mad ...]

On 03/05/12 19:11, Andy Street wrote:
> This hypothetical track follows the route of an ancient pathway and is
> used more by the plethora of dog walkers from the nearby village than by
> Farmer Giles. Surely by your logic this should be a foottrack?

No, unless it's defined somewhere and in widespread use.

If it's wide enough to drive a 4-wheeled vehicle along, and people do,
it quacks like a highway=track, and should be tagged as such.

If people don't drive it, or if it's narrower, it it quacks like a
highway=footway, but I'd really need to see it.

> Sure, unless there is a TRO, or similar anomaly, then it is sensible not
> to add access tags as all you're doing is duplicating what is already
> implied by the designation tag.

No. Designation tags imply nothing in OSM right now, as currently
documented, and by design IIRC. Also, I refer you to the recent mailing
list post regarding other countries and what they might mean by
"designation=public_footpath".

>> h=path is somewhat useless unless it's used as
>> a genuine "dunno" value like h=road, and we shouldn't be recommending it.
> 
> Why is path useless? What exactly does highway=footway,
> designation=public_footpath tell you that highway=path,
> designation=public_footpath doesn't?

That it is _used enough_ on foot to leave a mark, or is _made to be
suitable_ for use by foot. Also that it isn't more something else...

highway=path is sort of useless on the ground because it is normally
possible to figure out what a path primarily is by looking at it. If
it's not a made cycleway or something used by horse riders, then that
leaves footway by exclusion in this country, or no mappable path at all.

> If anything I'd say that highway=footway etc. are damaging as it
> duplicates what we already record in the access/designation tags.

No. The legal classification is not stored in the highway tag. Access
tags can add to the rather bare set of implications present for footway
(and I rather disagree with inferring foot=designated for them; in this
messy and unplanned country you'll often find a perfectly good footpath
with no set of markers. For shame.)

> It is
> also confusing to new users that need to remember that at track and
> above highway is the physical characteristics only

No. highway=primary for example carries an documented implicit right of
access for motor cars and HGVs, and all highways imply access=yes
(unhelpfully, IMO).

> whilst below it is
> physical and access.

If anything, above track they should carry fewer physical implications
than below. The classifications for roads are much more fluid in
practice and (theoretically should) pay greater attention to the road's
importance in the transport grid.


[... (m) those that have just broken a flower vase, (n) those that
resemble flies from a distance.]

-- 
Andrew Chadwick