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

[nathan case]

For full disclosure: I use *=designated, rather than *=yes, for PRoWs and I have been quite active updating the wiki in relation to PRoWs (I created the designation=public_footpath etc pages for example) and so my edits to the documentation reflect this.

The use of foot=designated on public footpaths is twice as common as foot=yes (126,761 combinations versus 57,727). https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=designation&value=public_footpath#combinations

So when I’ve created/updated the various Wiki pages, I’ve used *=desginated in the example tagging, as it’s the most common approach and the examples fit the definition of that value.

However, although it is more popular and is the scheme I use, I do also agree with Andy. The most important part of PRoW tagging is the designation=public_footpath tag (or whatever the PRoW type is) and it isn’t necessarily wrong to use either *=designated, or *=yes. Afterall, the documentation for foot=yes (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:foot%3Dyes) even says “foot=yes is applied where the public has a legally-enshrined right for access on foot (a right of way)”.

I note the “UK examples” on the page you linked, don’t explicitly refer to them as public footpaths or public bridleways and, of course, public footpaths and bridleways only apply to England and Wales – so the examples are ambiguous at best.


From: Chris Hodges <chris at c-hodges.co.uk>
Sent: 26 November 2021 13:52
To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Golfing tags seem to conflict with walking tags


I see where you're coming from with that, but if that's the settled view it suggests that the examples in the wiki page for tag:designated <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated> need to be updated (the "UK" example on that page also conflict with the ProW section of Access provisions in the United Kingdom<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_Rights_of_Way> on this point).  I'm still logged in and do tend to use designation= when mapping.  It's also a shame that my  example is in Gwent, which isn't on RoWmaps.  I'd like to try to trace the official route through the entrance.

On 26/11/2021 13:31, Andy Townsend wrote:


On 26/11/2021 13:00, Chris Hodges wrote:

But your comment prompted me to check a local example I'd mapped a few years ago - and got wrong, using "yes" for the public footpath instead of "designated".

I'd argue (in line with what Jerry said earlier) that neither "yes" nor "designated" are wrong here; in England and Wales at least, the use of "designated" is so confused that it only really means "yes", together with either "this might also be a public footpath/bridleway", or someone's used the original meaning of "designation" which was "this mode of traffic (in this case 'foot') should use perfectly legal way (a) as opposed to perfectly legal way (b), for reasons unrelated to legal access (such as crossing a road via a bridge to avoid getting run over)".

If something's in England and Wales is a public footpath please tag with "designation=public_footpath" (or as appropriate designation=public_bridleway, byway_open_to_all_traffic, restricted_byway, unclassified_highway *) so that there's no doubt about the PRoW status.  "designation=core_path" is widely used in Scotland for Scottish Core Paths**.  Not that it's relevant to GB, but for UK completeness the NI situation seems to be https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/public-rights-way , and there's relatively little use of designation for this purpose there: https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe/ireland-and-northern-ireland/keys/designation#values .

Best Regards,

Andy

* there are occasional exceptions, such as ways where the exact legal status is unclear but there is definitely a public right of way; "designation=public_right_of_way" can be used for those.

** https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/act-and-access-code/core-paths-plans





_______________________________________________

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/20211126/a9ad36d1/attachment-0001.htm>