[Talk-GB] Rights of way vs. tracks

[SK53]

For the bridleway map with highway=track, designation=public_bridleway.
Basic access rights can be inferred from this combination, but explicit
tagging does no harm (although it does make it a little harder to ensure
these are correct if there is a change in status). One of the beauties of
OSM is that we can represent the same PRoW as a driveway, followed by a
track, followed by a footpath or bridleway. The highway=bridleway tag
should be reserved for those public bridleways which do not follow a track,
service road or even an adopted highway. On PRoWs bridleways should have
different types of gates, much higher headroom, and, in some places,
abundant evidence of horses. I have also used highway=bridleway for
permissive access to field headlands, such as those
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/335329313#map=16/52.8005/-1.1505> in the
Leicestershire village of Horton.

Rights of way which exist but which no traces are evident on the ground can
be mapped in two ways:

   -  Not at all. I took this option in Carmarthenshire
   <https://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2011/07/footpaths-in-carmarthenshire-whats-point.html>
   where paths may be signposted but soon disappear into peoples gardens,
   jungles etc. Representing that they exist in any meaningful way for map
   users is just not a reflection of what is on the ground.
   -  Map the line of the PRoW solely with the designation tag. My
   favourite example <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/293561685> is
   between Wellow & Laxton. Bridleway signs exist at both ends of the relevant
   path, but a deep ditch & heavily ploughed fields are a massive disincentive
   to use when there is a perfectly viable alternative along the edge of the
   wood 100 m away. Similarly I've seen a stile embedded deep in a hedge as
   evidence that a right of way exists & that a footpath once existed. Again I
   just used designation as the main tag.

Good places to look at PRoW mapping are the locations where several of us
have met up to map paths (links to Andy Townsends maps, but you can toggle
to the main OSM style):

   -  Hanbury
   <https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15&lat=52.84636&lon=-1.7425>,
   Staffs, see write-up
   <https://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2015/01/new-year-footpath-mapping-with-mappa.html>
   .
   -  Abbots Bromley
   <https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15&lat=52.81667&lon=-1.87545>,
   Staffs,
   -  Ipstones
   <https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=14&lat=53.04381&lon=-1.95892>,
   Staffs
   -  Scalford
   <https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=14&lat=52.80922&lon=-0.86381>,
   Leics
   -  Gringley-on-the-Hill
   <https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=14&lat=53.04381&lon=-1.95892>,
   Notts
   -  Lees
   <https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15&lat=52.9314&lon=-1.60989>,
   Derbyshire

Several very experienced footpath mappers have participated in these
events, and have worked together to add the detail you see on Andy's map
(pan to the edges & in most cases you'll see the difference) so I think
it's reasonable to describe the results as representing a consensus.
Elsewhere the Peak District in general is very well-mapped for footpaths
and has had many contributors, so offers a bigger set of useful examples:
however this is popular walking country and paths fallen into disrepair
will be rarer.

HTH,

Jerry

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 19:39, Edward Bainton <bainton.ete at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all
>
> Two rights of way questions for England & Wales:
>
> 1.
> What do we do when a public bridleway passes down an otherwise private
> track, as here <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/729405361>?
>
> Both the track the the right of way are 'on the ground'.
>
> Do I mark a track, with all it's passability tags, and then tag horses &
> foot=designated? That acknowledges the track, but disregards the
> documentation here
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway#England_and_Wales:_Public_bridleways>
> which says "Public bridleways should be tagged: highway
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=bridleway and
> designation <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation>
> =public_bridleway" .
>
> Or do I follow the documentation and disregard the visible track?
>
> Same question for public footpaths.
>
> 2.
> What should I do with this footpath
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/729709956>, which appears on OSM and
> also on the OS map
> <http://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=511004&y=298838&z=115&sv=511004,298838&st=4&ar=y&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf&dn=577&ax=511004&ay=298838&lm=0>
> as a public footpath.
>
> There is absolutely no indication of it on the ground: no beaten path, no
> fingerboard, no break in the hedge at the SW end (it wouldn't need one at
> the NE end, open country).
>
> Do I delete as probably sourced from OS, or leave as it's a right of way?
>
> (For some reason the history shows me as the author of Version #1 of that
> path, but actually it long predated my edits in this area. iirc the
> history, before my edits elsewhere apparently over-wrote it, showed it as
> added several years ago)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Edward (eteb3)
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190929/89820932/attachment-0001.html>