[Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

Michael Collinson mike at ayeltd.biz
Sat Jul 11 12:19:42 UTC 2020


Perhaps there should be a access/foot=open_access tag?

Paths across open access areas aren't really "permissive". First, you 
usually have some rights to wander off the path/make your own. Second, 
there is (always?) some sort of regulatory/public right involved, it 
isn't just dependent on the largesse of a landowner.

In my area of Yorkshire, there are a number of open access areas where 
unofficial paths have evolved over recent years. I have mapped these as 
foot=yes, but that misses the extra right-to-roam dimension.

Mike

On 2020-07-11 12:57, Philip Barnes wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



More information about the Talk-GB mailing list