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

[Jon Pennycook]

Personally, in the absence of signs, I don't put a general overall access
tag on rights of way. I usually  (based on a survey) tag rights other than
those included in the Right of Way are private rather than no, and
sometimes permissive. I don't like blanket edits where people assume that
because something is a public footpath for example, all other access is
forbidden (it isn't necessarily, there may be permissive access for some
modes and residents will often be allowed access, corresponding to
something like vehicle=private or destination).

On highway=footway, I tend to see tags like vehicle=no as redundant - the
default access for highway=footway does not include bicycles or other
vehicles
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_Kingdom

For example, there are a number of public footpaths on tracks/service roads
near me where cyclists have permissive access and motorists have
destination access - automatically tagging every non-designated mode as
"no" would not capture these.

On the other hand, assuming that bicycles have access on a permissive
bridleway without a survey is dangerous - I know of at least one that I
have had to change because the signs denied access for cyclists.

Jon

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/20220730/5d9bda92/attachment.htm>