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

[Neil Matthews]

I have added access tags to a footpath in the past -- on the assumption 
that they trump the "footpathness".
It's rare but sometimes alleys/ginnels that are footpaths were somewhat 
adjusted by the council and locked, so only accessible to local 
houseowners (although footpath signs were still present!).

Cheers,
Neil

On 30/07/2022 23:01, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
> 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
>
>