[Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

[Mike Baggaley]

>Highway=no seems acceptable to me where a path is permanently physically
>blocked by a building or such-like. We're not serving anyone by directing
>people into wals. I do, however, disagree with its use to tag definitive
>rights of way which are useable but which merely deviate from the route a
>mapper mapped on the ground. Eg. I don't think a highway=no tag should be
>added to a cross field definitive footpath just because a path round the
>field has been mapped.

In the case where a path has been permanently blocked, I would suggest disused:highway=footway/bridleway, abandonded:highway=footway  or removed:highway=footway, depending on whether the path is still visible and whether the blockage would be relatively easy or difficult to remove. This seems to me to be much better than highway=no.

Regards,
Mike