[Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 11:51 +0100, Nick wrote:
> That would be great, bearing in mind access rights differ (e.g.
> Scotland 
> and England).

Not just England, Wales too.

Phil (trigpoint)

> 
> A really interesting point regarding temporary land-use (forestry, 
> farming etc.) restrictions - ideal if it was dynamic to ensure that
> it 
> is always updated (otherwise users woiuld ignore). It would
> certainly 
> help land managers and users. Imagine if this was in place for Covid 
> restrictions.
> 
> Nick
> 
> On 11/07/2020 11:37, Dan S wrote:
> > Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary
> > guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate
> > consensus? It would be super helpful
> > 
> > Dan
> > 
> > Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg
> > <nick.whitelegg at solent.ac.uk>:
> > > .. to follow that up, a good example where I have used
> > > foot=permissive en-masse is the New Forest. It's an unusual case
> > > in that there are no rights of way (except, to guarantee access I
> > > suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths are implicitly
> > > open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a
> > > permissive path' notice.
> > > 
> > > Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to
> > > forestry operations.
> > > 
> > > Nick
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Nick Whitelegg <nick.whitelegg at solent.ac.uk>
> > > Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11
> > > To: Talk GB <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in
> > > the countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas
> > > with public access, which are not rights of way but which
> > > nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 'Private' or
> > > 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the
> > > landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public
> > > use.
> > > 
> > > I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain
> > > 'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It
> > > might have public or permissive use. It might be private. At the
> > > moment we don't know'.
> > > 
> > > I tend to use:
> > > designation for rights of way;
> > > foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive
> > > paths;
> > > foot=yes for urban paths;
> > > access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out'
> > > sign.
> > > 
> > > Nick
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Adam Snape <adam.c.snape at gmail.com>
> > > Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20
> > > To: Talk GB <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
> > > 
> > > It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway,
> > > foot=yes as an error just because foot access is implied by
> > > default. Whilst there might be the tiniest bit of redundancy I
> > > can't see any particular reason to remove it and, indeed, there
> > > might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to
> > > an implied value.
> > > 
> > > OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat
> > > for the end user that a way might be closed. I only add it where
> > > a route is explicitly stated to be permissive on the ground, is
> > > actually known or likely to be shut from time to time, or is
> > > clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and housing
> > > estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and
> > > about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways.
> > > 
> > > Kind regards,
> > > 
> > > Adam
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Talk-GB mailing list
> > > Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb