[Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

Stephen Colebourne scolebourne at joda.org
Fri Jul 10 21:19:34 UTC 2020

Hi, I'm the changeset commenter,
I added the foot=yes on the common based on it being a registered common
with definite legal access. I also add foot=yes to signed public footpaths.
I would only add foot=designated where there is a blue person sign or
similar (not a green/wooden public footpath sign) and where doing so adds
some value over just using the default. And I'm not sure I've ever actually
used it.

In general I'm wary of the legal aspect of the tag, as in most cases a
mapper has no idea of the legal status. My approach (SW London urban areas)
is based on a less legalistic interpretation:
* foot=private if it looks private
* "customers" if it is obviously for customers
* "destination" if it is obviously just for those going somewhere in
particular, such as a path to a school or church
* "permissive" if it is likely to be private land but it is known or almost
certainly used by others, paths on housing estates being an example
* "yes" if I'm confident of the legal status, such as common land and
public footpaths
* nothing otherwise, and this includes sidewalks


On Fri, 10 Jul 2020, 17:02 Adam Snape, <adam.c.snape at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> It's worth pointing out that if Wimbledon Common is (as I assume)
> registered as common land then there would normally be a legal right of
> access on foot under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, so
> foot=yes would be correct.
> Kind regards,
> Adam
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200710/5700610c/attachment.htm>

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list