[Talk-GB] Golfing tags seem to conflict with walking tags

[Ken Kilfedder]

Many golf courses do have permitted footways that the public can use; so we shouldn't end up assuming that all paths on all golf courses are closed to the public.

But for those that are not open and available to the public, is there anything wrong with existing access tags like foot=private or foot=customers (or foot=permit)?

---
https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
spiregrain_osm at ksglp.org.uk


On Fri, 26 Nov 2021, at 9:23 AM, Jon Pennycook wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> Golfing tags for paths seem to conflict with those used for walking.  e.g. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:golf%3Dpath
> 
> I have noticed that a number of golf courses have paths tagged as highway=path, foot=designated.  From my point of view, this means that any pedestrian can use that path, but practically many of those paths are private and not open to the general public (so if they were not paths on golf courses, they would be tagged as foot=private or foot=permit).
> 
> If these are connected with roads or rights of way, journey planners might send pedestrians through golf courses, which may not be desirable.  Perhaps we need a way to tag a designated route for pedestrians that isn't open to the general public?
> 
> Jon
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20211126/826dfa5d/attachment.htm>