[Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?
davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com
Mon Mar 11 20:40:52 UTC 2019
On 10/03/2019 23:45, Martin Wynne wrote:
>> There's clearly no evidence of 4 wheeled vehicles, so it should be
>> marked as a bridleway, but It's advisable to check the whole length
>> as sections can be used by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get
>> between adjacent fields.
> It's a public bridleway, with the usual "evidence", so no argument
> about that.
> But is it highway=bridleway or highway=track?
Specifically this, except substitute path for bridleway:
If the way is not wide enough for a two-track vehicle, it should be
tagged as highway=path.
> There is evidence of recent wheeled use, which I think was a tractor
> gaining access across the adjacent fields for the purpose of
> hedge-trimming alongside it. It clearly was once a vehicular track.
Then split the way up. Tag the sections accessible by vehicles as
width=* is also useful for both bridleway & track
> What I think I'm getting at is this -- is the highway= tag intended to
> represent the physical appearance, or the intended use?
With track, it probably has to be a bit of both, Physical appearance
should provide an indication of intended use. Unlike metalled highways,
tracks, unfortunately, rarely have clarifying reference signs like the
A4, M62 etc
More information about the Talk-GB