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

[Andy Townsend]

No - in England and Wales an unspecified access tag surely means just "don't know" especially as if (as seems to be the case for one of the ways here) it's mapped from aerial imagery.

When creating maps for my own use I always note where access isn't explicitly tagged to avoid thinking i'm only a mile from somewhere when in reality I'm not, and the shortcut is private.

The OSM "standard style" doesn't show England and Wales "Public Footpaths", but as an international style it really wouldn't make sense to (and the presumption of "no public access if untagged" doesn't make sense even in  the more enlightened corners of these islands). Shameless plug - follow http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SomeoneElse/Ubuntu_1604_tileserver_load if you want to create some tiles that do show them‎

"landowners taking matters into their own hands" isn't necessarily a problem - it's a prompt to have the conversation about "something shown on a map doesn't imply public access", and that if deleted, ways could just get remapped from imagery, so best to ensure that access tags are correct.
‎

  Original Message  
From: David Woolley
Sent: Sunday, 2 October 2016 14:22
To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale

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.
>


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb