[Talk-GB] Rights of way - Image vote

[Robert Whittaker (OSM)]

On 11 May 2012 13:09, Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 May 2012 10:07, Robert Whittaker <robert.whittaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't think this proposed tagging is particularly helpful as it
>> fails to distinguish between two issues: whether the way in question
>> is suspected of being a recorded right of way (ie appearing on the
>> definitive statement), or whether its known to be unrecorded (on the
>> definitive statement) but is suspected of being an right of way
>> anyway. I think any proposed tagging in this area would need to
>> distinguish between these cases. Also "suspected" is really too
>> generic a name to use, since it doesn't tell us what key the suspected
>> value belongs to. Maybe suspected:designation=* would be better?
>>
>
> --> I get your point about the 2 different cases. However as you are likely
> aware any way that is not on the Def Map & Statement by 2026 will no longer
> be a public right of way. As such there is value to checking both cases with
> equal priority. Essentially my hope with the suspected tag, is that if
> allows mappers to indicate when they think a way might be or perhaps should
> be a public right of way. This can then be followed up (perhaps even by a
> different contributor) to check whether it is on the Def Statement and if
> not to request it be added. The progress during this stage can be added in
> the note=* tag. If we can get a few missing ways added to the Def Statement
> we can put out a positive news article.

I still strongly feel that the two situations should be distinguished
by some sort of machine readable tagging. For example way has been
checked and found to be not recorded on the Definitive Statement, it
would be useful to tag this fact in a machine-readable manner. How you
do it I guess depends on whether you interpret a "Right of Way" with a
designation to just be the recorded routes on the definitive statement
or everything that would be a right of way if claimed as such. One
option would be to add a designation=unrecorded once it has been
verified that the way isn't listed on the Definitive Statement. You
might also want to change suspected:designation to claimed:designation
if a DMMO application has been submitted.

Also, for compatibility with existing QC tools, when we're tagging the
fact that we're unsure of whether the way is a recorded right of way,
I think it it important to encourage people to add a suitable fixme=*
tag in addition to any other tagging you want to promote. That way
it's more likely that other local mappers will see that there's more
work to be done to determine the correct tagging.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker