[Talk-GB] ITO path designation map & designation=unclassified_highway

[Robert Whittaker (OSM)]

On 3 September 2012 22:38, SomeoneElse <lists at mail.atownsend.org.uk> wrote:
> m902 wrote:
> (See Robert Whittaker's page
> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/designation.html)
>
> I'd take issue with some of that page - it looks very much like one person's
> personal view rather than a concensus.

Indeed, that's why it says that the items are "my personal
recommendations, and not necessarily the consensus of the mapping
community" :)

>  Why exactly is
> "unclassified_county_road" obsolete?  It's still used by a number of
> councils and is exactly what it says on the sign.

My reasoning for recommending "unclassified_highway" over "ucr" or
"unclassified_county_road" is as follows:

There is a class of route over which the public has rights of access
which is not one of the four types of Public Rights of Way that are
recorded in the Definitive Map and Statement. These are normals roads
or "Public Highways", and they appear on another document known as the
"List of Streets". Public rights over most of these are obvious, as
they're tarmaced roads that are obviously open to the public. We tag
these as highway=primary,secondary, tertiary,unclassified etc.

But there are some routes which have the same status as other roads,
but which don't appear as such. They typically resemble farm tracks
and are usually unmetalled, and unsuitable for normal road vehicles.
Based on the physical appearance, we'd probably tag these as tracks.
Yet there are still access rights over them, so it would be good to
record this, and (crucially) to use a designation tag to explain why
such rights exist.

Some councils will have specific terms for such routes, but I don't
think this alters the legal classification or makes any material
difference to the way's status. Therefore I think it would be
preferable to use a single designation=* value for such routes. As far
as I know, the term "Unclassified County Road" is legally obsolete,
even if it's still used by some councils. On the ground I've seen the
routers signed in a variety of different ways, include "By Road" and
"Route". I think Norfolk County Council just records them in its List
of Streets in same way as other unclassified highways with a U-number.
In searching for a common designation=* value to use, I looked for the
lowest common denominator for such routes. They're public highways,
and don't have a primary, secondary or tertiary classification, so it
seemed that "Unclassified Highway" fitted the bill.

> I'm also not actually sure how "designation=permissive_footpath" differs
> from "foot=permissive" - surely in this case there is no designation and it
> doesn't need to be explicitly marked?

I've been using designation=permissive_footpath for routes that are
explicitly signed as such on the ground, as opposed to foot=permissive
which I think may be used by some to mean assumed permissive access.
There is actually some sort of legal concept of a permissive footpath,
in that land-owners can submit a declaration to the highways authority
acknowledging the public rights of way and any permissive routes over
their land. Including the permissive routes means that they're
protected against future claims to upgrade them to Public Rights of
Way. Although it's not a legal designation in the same way as
pubilc_footpath etc, I still think it's a useful extension of the key
to help when compiling maps of routes that different users can legally
use.

I hope that helps explain my thinking,

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker