[Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

Dan S danstowell+osm at gmail.com
Sat Jul 11 12:50:35 UTC 2020


If it's truly "open access land" then it's not permissive, it's merely
foot=yes, surely?

Dan

Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 13:20 schreef Michael Collinson <mike at ayeltd.biz>:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



More information about the Talk-GB mailing list