[Talk-GB] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[Mark Goodge]

On 02/09/2019 14:58, David Woolley wrote:
> On 02/09/2019 14:48, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Sometimes they want us to add a "vehicle=no" to a track that has
>> absolutely no signposts whatsoever locally, meaning that nobody can
>> verify that vehicles are forbidden and no local motorist would be turned
>> away
> 
> This could conflict with a trend that I believe is developing, at least 
> for more formal roads, of removing signage, because it distracts 
> drivers, and relying on satellite navigators to provide the information 
> instead.

That's certainly not a trend in the UK. At the moment, the problem is 
the opposite: how to ensure that people obey the signs rather than 
following sat-nav. For example:

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/lorry-driver-sat-nav-nightmare-683052

One of the issues with relying on sat-nav is that the device data often 
isn't updated very often. Unless the government can impose some kind of 
legally binding SLA on the device manufacturers to ensure that all data 
updates are performed within a specified period of time, then you can't 
rely on people having current information. If a road is closed, then 
people need to know it's closed from the moment it's closed - waiting 
for their navigation software to update isn't good enough!

> Whilst this probably doesn't currently apply to prohibitions, a logical 
> extension, at some time in the near future, might be to make the 
> electronic map definitive in all cases.

If we ever do get a situation where the electronic map is the definitive 
record of prohibitions and other relevant mapping data, then it will 
need to be available via an open licence (presumably OGL, here in the 
UK). So presumably we'd be able to import that directly into OSM via an 
API call or data dump. But it would probably need a set of specific tags 
that don't conflict with those used by people mapping from observation.

Mark