[Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject

[Andrew Chadwick]

On 11/05/12 10:45, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>>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.

(That was somewhat incautiously worded. Maybe "we should make it into a
strength, not a weakness" is a better rallying cry. Ho hum.)

> Sorry but I do have to say this. In an area (UK outside of Scotland)
> where sadly, you're not free to roam where you like, access rights are
> *absolutely vital detail* for walkers and other users of the countryside
> and indicating them explicitly where known, either via designation, or
> foot/horse/bicycle = (designated/yes - the two I consider equivalent),
> permissive or private is essential. They should only be left out where
> they are not known.

Yes, but no. Yes I agree that it's information we should gather, and
anyone more into this thing than a casual mapper probably should.
However in order to broaden OSM's appeal we can't demand it at the entry
level. Particularly if there are no handy buttons for it in Potlatch.

Most of the general public don't know or care, or just bimble along
anything with tarmac whether it's marked "footpath" or not. New OSM
users are drawn from this population, demonstrably don't record the
information, and aren't really fussed about it if we're honest. They can
slap down a path, ideally for us a nice intuitive h=footway, and call it
a day quite happily. And I have no problem with the data being fairly
minimal: itsawiki, after all.

Obviously we work on the raw recruits and turn them all into good
public-spirited citizen hero mappers striding the land and quelling
dragons, like ourselves, but it takes time. Hence my argument that
there's an intermediate stage somewhere in there for those levelling up.
This is the stage where we should be saying that a sign looking like
[photo] means you should add a public_[whatever]way tag in addition, but
leave it at that.

Experts can set additional access tags if they want and need to. IMO the
full sets for a particular designation are a pain to remember, large,
demonstrably quite difficult to understand in combination, and easy to
get wrong. They're best done either a) in full with the presets, or b)
minimally, tagging only the exceptions to what you perceive as the
general rule implied by the other tags.

> I don't see it as a problem for new mappers to understand the meaning of
> the designation or access tags. They're quite straightforward really!

Individually yes; together in a big lump: haha no. Particularly not when
the access tags we recommend in the docs have been a bit outdated with
everyone fearful of updating them, as has happened in the past.

Being honest (and a bit snobby) I'd rather *not* have new users attempt
access tags at first if they're more likely to mess things up.

> When I walk in a new area I need to know which paths are OK and which
> are unfortunately off limits.

Me too, luckily it's normally signposted :D That's OK for the vast
majority of map users even if it's a bit pants for data consumers and we
should be pushing for designations and access tags in the long run. But
let's convey it in a way tailored to the levels of involvement of our users.

-- 
Andrew Chadwick