[Talk-GB] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale

David Woolley forums at david-woolley.me.uk
Sun Oct 2 13:21:17 UTC 2016


On 02/10/16 13:06, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>
> Indeed - unless they have foot=yes, foot=permissive, access=permissive
> (etc) or designation=public_footpath, we are in no way telling them that
> they are public access.

Whether or not there is a formal statement of this anywhere an 
unspecified access is normally understood to be access=yes for the 
normal users of an element type in the country.

So I would say that highway=path was equivalent to highway=path; 
foot=yes; bicycle=yes; horse=yes; motor_vehicle=no (spellings may be 
wrong). highway=footway would imply yes to just foot.  Renderers and 
routers will, I think follow this policy.

>
> It is completely unreasonable for landowners to have a go at us just for
> showing a path on the map. Just because it's on the map, it doesn't
> implicitly mean it's public.

I would say if it is mapped as footway or path and doesn't have an 
explicit access, it does implicitly allow foot use by the general 
public.  I think the landowner could reasonably expect an explicit 
access tag with restricted rights.  That is best done by giving access= 
for the most permissive and cancelling other rights using detailed 
categories, even though there is an element of mapping for the renderer 
in that.

This needs resolving fairly quickly, otherwise the landowner will take 
matters into their own hands, register to edit, and fix the problem in a 
way that suits them, which will probably not involve the subtleties of 
coding, but simply a deletion of all the paths he thinks the public 
should not use.
>




More information about the Talk-GB mailing list