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

[Alex Wardle]

nickpop was the user I noticed the changes been made by. I've sent them
a message asking about the source/reason of the changes.
I went out and checked one of the recent changes near me (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/123971351#map=18/52.16440/-2.26318
). There is nothing on the track that indicates it is no open to the
public, it leads to several houses and a farm. There is a public
footpath sign at the beginning pointing down the track as well as a
sign pointing to what I guess is business and a no through road sign
(in text form). 
On Sat, 2022-07-30 at 22:52 +0100, Steve Brook via Talk-GB wrote:
> I have noticed that in Worcestershire this is being done by user
>  nickpop, who seems to be systematically going through the paths and
> tracks in the area adding access=no to public footpaths and
> access=private to anything else. The change sets do not state the
> source of the information. I suspect that it is not survey
> One side effect of this is that public footpaths a no longer rendered
> on the Standard map in bright red and have become almost invisible.
> Can someone review this users work and make a definitive ruling on
> the desirability of these changes? 
>  
> From: Jon Pennycook via Talk-GB [mailto:talk-gb at openstreetmap.org] 
> Sent: 30 July 2022 21:53
> To: Talk Gb
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Access tag on public rights of way
>  
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________Talk-GB mailing 
> listTalk-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/20220731/39f7f4be/attachment.htm>