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

[Chris Hodges]

If that means signed by the council as "public footpath" (or 
byway/bridleway) rather than signed by the council as "Cotswold way" (to 
use a local example, some small sections of which are permissive), then 
it's a sensible approach. I've come across council signs which aren't as 
straightforward though: "footpath to..." - yes but is it a
PROW?

On 07/01/2021 09:04, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB wrote:
>
> 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
>     <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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb