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

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 19:33, Mike Baggaley via Talk-GB
<talk-gb at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >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.

That's a good suggestion. I wouldn't completely rule out using
highway=no, but if one of your other suggestions fits it would be good
to use it. I've now added those options to the "missing highway"
checks my PRoW tool does, so if one of them have been used, it won't
complain about the lack of a highway=* tag on a Right of Way.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

-- 
Robert Whittaker