[Talk-GB] Quarterly Project 2021Q

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

 On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 14:09, nathan case <nathancase at outlook.com> wrote:
> > Also I think it would be better to use the terms used in The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
> foot=designated
> designation=registered_common_land
> and
> designation=open_access_land
>
> I'm a little confused by this.
>
> "Common" land has a public "right to roam" attached to it [1]. A village/town green does not [1]. "Right to roam" land is  "open access land" [2].
>
> So the two labels seem to be equivalent and both describe common land - not village/town green. How about designation=open_access_land and designaton=village_green?

Registered Commons are not the same as Access Land. Common Land is an
ancient concept, whereas Access Land is a modern invention connected
with the so-called "Right to Roam". As I understand it, almost all
Registered Common Land will also be Access Land, but there is
certainly also a lot of Access Land that is not Common Land. Common
Land has additional restrictions on development, and possibly other
rights for certain people, which don't apply to Access Land in
general. So I think it's good to maintain a distinction in our
tagging.

I guess there's a question about whether we tag Access Land Commons
with just designation=registered_common_land (and assume access_land
is implied) or if we explicitly include both designations: e.g.
designation=registered_common_land;access_land .

While I'm here: do people have a preference between
designation=registered_common_land and designation=common ? The latter
is what's currently in use (about 140 times in the UK) but the former
is the full term used in CRoW Act 2000. I'd prefer the former:
although it's a longer tag value, I think it's more obvious that it
corresponds to a formal legal designation, and so is less likely to
get mis-applied.

Robert.
-- 
Robert Whittaker