[Talk-GB] “No path”

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2023-01-08 at 13:48 +0000, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 at 13:37, Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I completely agree with regard to beach sections of LDPs, such
> > ashttps://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/400098#map=12/-35.0135/117
> > .2243 (in Western Australia)
> > andhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3285170#map=14/51.5619/-4
> > .1443&layers=H (South Wales).  The latter has got all the Wales
> > Coast Path signage in it that I could find in that area; I couldn't
> > find any on the beach itself.  The former has occasional signage at
> > best.
> > > The same happens in pasture where there is a right of way and
> > > entry/exit stiles or kissing gates. The route taken by walkers
> > > varies to avoid wet bits and to go around where livestock is
> > > grazing at the time 
> > If the exit from a field is obvious (e.g. gate visible at the far
> > side) I probably wouldn't mark it as a low trail_visibility, as
> > it's obvious where you need to go.  It's not like
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/820162969 , where the sign that
> > you're aiming for is far enough not to be visible from the other
> > end.
> > 
> 
> That depends on conditions, does it not? A gate that is obvious on a
> clear, sunny day may be a challenge to find at night or in fog.

I do map trees in hedge lines which can be used to guide walkers
towards the next gate or stile, especially useful if its over the brow
of a hill.

> 
> I guess you could argue that a foot-worn trail that's obvious on the
> ground in summer may be obscured by snow from time to time. But that
> feels different somehow.

Rural rights of way over pasture very rarely have a worn trail, unless
they are in a tourist area or are a local hotspot they will rarely see
enough walkers for a foot worn trail to develop. Walkers tend to take
subtly different routes which will vary based on where livestock is at
the time.

Phil (trigpoint)
>