[Talk-GB] "designated" and "permissive" confuse new people

[Chris Hodges]

I agree with your top point that "designated" applies to modes not ways.


I hadn't noticed that the designation was missing when I split the way 
from the horribly muddy bridleway that continues NE from the end of the 
drive  - yes it is  a public bridleway.  Anyway I'm still logged in so I 
could fix that easily. One thing I don't understand is why bicycles are 
"yes" rather than "designated" on a bridleway, when the access is set 
out legally - and for that matter whether it's different for a 
(restricted) byway.


Also , that "further guidance" link reminded me of another edit I was 
planning to make (many miles away, barrier=debris where someone has cut 
trees down across a bridleway), so thanks


C


On 04/10/2021 10:49, nathan case wrote:
>
> “Access=designated” should not be used as a tag itself, the designated 
> value is instead used when the route is specifically intended for a 
> particular transport mode.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated>
>
> It looks like that bridleway is actually a public bridleway. Public 
> bridleways are legally designated for the use of horse riders and 
> pedestrians, cyclists are also permitted so I would tag 
> horse=designated, foot=designated, and bicycle=yes (unless otherwise 
> signed as prohibited). Also include designation=public_bridleway and 
> prow_ref=* (if that is available).
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_bridleways 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_bridleways>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Adesignation%3Dpublic_bridleway 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Adesignation%3Dpublic_bridleway>
>
> In cases where public rights of way are shared with “other” ways, for 
> example your public bridleway and a private driveway, map the 
> “highest” classification way and add the appropriate access tags for 
> each transport mode individually.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Further_guidance_on_tagging_Public_Rights_of_Way_in_the_United_Kingdom#PRoW_runs_along_the_same_route_as_another_highway 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Further_guidance_on_tagging_Public_Rights_of_Way_in_the_United_Kingdom#PRoW_runs_along_the_same_route_as_another_highway>
>
> In terms of confusion, the iD editor does have the little “info” 
> buttons next to inputted values. Most of the ones relating to access 
> tagging (e.g. foot=designated) do now have descriptions associated 
> with them.
>
> Hope the above is helpful.
>
>  testtest
>
> *From:*Chris Hodges <chris at c-hodges.co.uk>
> *Sent:* 04 October 2021 09:42
> *To:* talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] "designated" and "permissive" confuse new people
>
> As someone who may have made this mistake in the past, I reckon along 
> with requesting confirmation, we should have a "more info" link (not 
> "Wiki" IMO though that's where it should point) as close as possible.
>
> I often find myself on bridleways (and less often footpaths) that are 
> also private road, farm building access, or shared driveways.  The 
> distinction between "access=destination" and 
> "foot,horses,bicycles=yes, motor_vehicles=destination" is perhaps a 
> little subtle.  Here's one that I got wrong in a different way (fixed 
> now) by putting "motor_vehicles=no" when it's the way to drive up to 
> the houses ("private" vs. "destination" is another question): 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/884300724 
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/884300724>
>
> The actual "designated" vs. "permissive" shouldn't be too hard for 
> anyone familiar with "permissive" on OS maps.
>
> Chris
>
> On 02/10/2021 21:02, Jon Pennycook wrote:
>
>     This sounds like a good idea: "request confirmation for commonly
>     misunderstood options"
>
>     On Sat, 2 Oct 2021 at 19:06, David Woolley
>     <forums at david-woolley.me.uk <mailto:forums at david-woolley.me.uk>>
>     wrote:
>
>         On 02/10/2021 18:53, David Woolley wrote:
>         > I guess tools could indicate country specific assumptions, when
>         > providing arrays of check boxes, and give detailed explanations
>         > (although simply greying out is probably wrong, as there may
>         be cases to
>         > override assumptions - maybe greyed with and without a check
>         mark?), and
>         > request confirmation for commonly misunderstood options,
>
>         Oops, I mis-edited the above when composing, and the
>         parentheses are in
>         a confusion place.  It was supposed to say:
>
>         I guess tools could indicate country specific assumptions, when
>         providing arrays of check boxes, (although simply greying out is
>         probably wrong, as there may be cases to override assumptions
>         - maybe
>         greyed with and without a check mark?) and give detailed
>         explanations,
>         and request confirmation for commonly misunderstood options
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         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  <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20211004/b7030f7e/attachment.htm>