[Talk-GB] Access tag on public rights of way

[Andy Townsend (ajt1047@gmail.com)]

"access=no" might be correct (provided that the rights implied by the
footpath/bridleway signage are included), if it is explicitly signed. I can
think of plenty that are  and plenty that aren't.

If someone is adding that tag without survey, that's wrong. As ever, try
and talk it through with the mapper (and perhaps suggest that they discuss
on this list). If that fails, drop OSM's data working group (
data at openstreetmap.org) a mail

On Sat, 30 Jul 2022, 20:15 Alex Wardle, <awardle.comp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I was looking at recent changes around the Worcester area and noticed
> that a user has been changing some of the footpaths and bridleways and
> adding access=no tag to them whilst leaving the a foot=designated tag.
>
> I was just wondering if this is considered the correct use of the
> access=no tag and if this should be added to these ways?
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220730/dff99b6f/attachment.htm>