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

[Dave F]

I've always considered that "access=no tag indicates that the object is 
not to be used by the general public" and it can't be usurped by 
'except' tags such as foot=designated.

It's the highway tag which defines which transport mode has access rights.

Even though I've been adding them, I now consider foot=designated as 
redundant when tagging PROWs with designation=*

Ask the contributor if the Worcester ways are closed to walkers/horse or 
bicycle riders.

One of his I disagree with is:
https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/198659594

"No evidence" doesn't mean it's not a legal footpath.
The area is open access land, walkers can go anywhere & obviously follow 
the riverbank, but the true course is across an open field and should be 
mapped as such.

Caveat to the above - When an access point to a path, such as a stile or 
bridge, has been moved so it doesn't correspond with PROW data, it 
should be mapped as it is on the ground.

Given a couple of comments in this thread I think it's worth noting that 
the definitive document (and those derived from it & issued by the 
councils) is 'ground truth' & even more definitive than signposts, which 
can be missing or pointing in the incorrect direction.

DaveF



On 30/07/2022 20:13, Alex Wardle 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


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus