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

[Nick Whitelegg]

>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.


I would also have to say no to this - we need some way of mapping paths where it's not known if there is permissive access or not; I frequently come across such paths. highway=footway with no other tags is a good, clear way of implying this.


highway=footway or path should really mean "it's just a physical path", we shouldn't really be assuming things about access. Then add explicit access tags if we know it's permissive (or designation=public_footpath if it's known to be a RoW).

________________________________
From: David Woolley <forums at david-woolley.me.uk>
Sent: 02 October 2016 14:21:17
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20161003/06dd8f36/attachment.html>