[Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject

[Andy Robinson]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Chadwick [mailto:a.t.chadwick at gmail.com]
> Sent: 11 May 2012 10:38
> To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
> 
> On 07/05/12 13:19, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> > As a relatively new mapper, two things stand out to me.
> >
> > 1) What Potlatch offers will be used. That means
> > h=footway/cycleway/bridleway/track will be used over h=path
> >
> > 2) The footway/cycleway/bridleway classification scheme makes perfect
> > sense to me. Any path I see I in town I can easily classify into one
> > of the three - most are footways, some are dedicated cycleways, and on
> > somewhere like Wimbledon Common there is a dedicated bridleway. Thus
> > h=path is something I would perceive as a fallback.
> >
> > Note that at no point am I caring about designated rights of way. That
> > is a much more complex thing to determine it would seem, and not
> > something that a casual or new mapper would be bothered by.
> >
> > Tag the broad view of what you see. The PROW or other stuff is
> > *detail*. Let normal mappers add the basic
> > footway/cycleway/bridleway/track, and expert mappers add the detail
> > later.
> 
> This. I agree with this *so much*.
> 
> People map to the level of detail they're comfortable with, and that's a
> strength not a weakness. Legal designations, access rights and surface
type
> are pointless detail to a new mapper. Therefore whatever docs we write
> should encourage the use of the most expressive single-tag scheme for a
> thing up front because that enables new users to enter fairly informative
> data in the most comfortable way for them.
> 


+1

As mappers (regardless of experience) we are not the authoritative body with
respect to access rights and while of course we want to encourage good and
complete tagging we should not insist on it. We have always accepted the low
hanging fruit approach to adding data and long may that continue. What we
need are better tools to help the more experienced mapper identify missing
data, especially now that our mapping looks "complete" from the simple map
view.

Cheers
Andy