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

[Nick Whitelegg]

My own personal view is that the 'on the ground route' is what counts, if it has been officially signed by the council. This means that it's the de-facto route, the one the council is recommending you use, and the one which is is used practically.

If people want to access the Definitive Map route (or at least the digitised version of it), they can always view that as an overlay on top of the on-the-ground truth. Otherwise the OSM database just gets messy, is there any need for us to duplicate the Definitive Map data?

Nick


________________________________
From: Edward Bainton <bainton.ete at gmail.com>
Sent: 07 January 2021 08:33
To: Dave F <davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com>
Cc: Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way mapping guidance for Wiki

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<mailto: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<mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org<mailto: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/20210107/5745e8bc/attachment-0001.htm>