[Talk-GB] Invisible/impassable rights-of-way
mail at andystreet.me.uk
Fri Jan 25 12:22:58 GMT 2013
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 10:09 +0000, John Aldridge wrote:
> All this discussion of rights of way reminds me: is there a consensus
> about how (and whether) to map rights-of-way which are either impassable
> or invisible?
> I've encountered examples of both round here, and have so far chosen not
> to map them at all, on the grounds that we're trying to map the actual
> state of the ground, not some legal fiction.
> Do people concur?
Broadly, yes. IMHO:
Impassable - If you can't traverse a right of way then it shouldn't have
a highway tag. There may be a case for adding a way with just the
designation tag but I would consider it to be the exception rather than
the rule. If someone is interested solely in the definitive legal status
of a path then they will use the definitive map not OSM.
Invisible - I suppose this would depend on why it is invisible. I've
mapped plenty of paths that were invisible because the grass was too
short to leave footprints or the ground had recently been ploughed.
More information about the Talk-GB