[Talk-GB] Rights of Way tiles

[Andy Townsend]

On 20/12/2021 12:07, David Woolley wrote:
> On 20/12/2021 11:52, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

First - thanks Richard!  That's a really useful overlay.  It's 
interesting seeing where (in well surveyed areas) there are 
differences.  Alongside a river near me where levees were added around 
1970, the on-the-ground signs follow a path above the levee, but the 
"rights of way" data either predate that or are below the levee.


>> highway=service (*cough* Amazon *cough*) without adding designation= 
>> or access tags
>
> One problem I've found on that is people who religiously apply the on 
> the ground rule and won't accept that it is common sense that service 
> roads behind rows of houses are private, and they don't need to be 
> signposted as private to be assumed private.

It really does help to add access tags such as foot, bicycle and horse 
to things that aren't obviously public roads if known.  For example, you 
can't assume that a "highway=footway" is "foot=yes" unless you know 
"what it is" and "where it is":

  * "what it is" means (in England and Wales) designated
    "public_footpath" or similar.

  * "where it is" means whether it's in England and Wales or in
    Scotland.  Scotland is covered by
    https://www.mygov.scot/scottish-outdoor-access-code ; in England and
    Wales it might be across CRoW Act access land (see
    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-access-land-management-rights-and-responsibilities
    ), in which case "foot=yes" is implied.  Also in at least England
    and Wales there might be some previous legislation that implies
    "foot=yes" (an area local to me is covered by
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/39691/strenshall_common.pdf
    which in OSM terms basically says "foot=yes while the military are
    not using it").

Despite 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_your_local_legislation.2C_if_not_bound_to_objects_in_reality 
I think that it _does_ make sense to map "obviously private" things as 
private (e.g. a track that leads from a locked gate only to one farm, 
with no other signage).

It also makes sense to add e.g. "foot=yes" to something also tagged as 
"designation=public_footpath" so that data consumers not familiar with 
every usage of "designation" around the world can know the access rules 
without having to infer them.

Best Regards,

Andy


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20211220/f4651405/attachment-0001.htm>