[Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way mapping guidance for Wiki

[Edward Bainton]

I do wonder whether we need to have two keys: one for legal and one for
physical.

This tension keeps surfacing. It seems to me we're trying to square a
circle, in that there are two wholly different aspects of access: may and
can. Both are important, and if access keys can reflect only one of the two
(even supposing we can agree which one that is!), absurd cases are bound to
crop up.

On Thu, 7 Jan 2021, 01:56 Dave F via Talk-GB, <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
wrote:

> You misunderstood the meaning of the access key which represents the
> *legal* right, not the physical (in)ability.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
>
> DaveF
>
> On 06/01/2021 16:24, Martin Wynne wrote:
> > On 06/01/2021 16:07, nathan case wrote:
> >
> >> You should not assume that access is or is not permitted by other
> >> transport modes. It may not even be possible to determine this from a
> >> ground survey.
> >
> > The presence of stiles or kissing gates on a footpath pretty well
> > rules out any practical use by bicycles or horses.
> >
> > Does this mean bicycle=no, horse=no? If not, how else to indicate that
> > bicycles and horses are physically blocked? Even if permitted in theory?
> >
> > Martin.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20210107/b4d39903/attachment.htm>