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

[Dave F]

On 07/01/2021 08:33, Edward Bainton wrote:
> 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.

There already are two, separate sets of keys.

Rights: access=*, foot/bicycle/motor_vehicle=yes/designated etc

&

Ability: surface, barriers, incline, mtb:scale etc

The problem with ability is it's so subjective - what a mountaineer 
might consider child's play could quite possibly be consider dangerous 
to a family with a child.

DaveF

> 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
>>