[OSM-talk] Issue from IRC last night.... UK rights of way andaccess keys

[Nick Whitelegg]

Etienne,

> Nick
> This seems more complex than needed.  It is certainly not easy for the
> casual user to understand.

The trouble is, UK countryside rights of way, and other routes in common use 
*are* complex. However, If the editors hide the complexity, and present the 
user with a range of pre-defined types (the conversion going on under the 
hood) this shouldn't matter too much. 

There is various meta-data associated with a right of way or other route. 
Firstly, the type of track (which corresponds to the "highway" tag) - e.g. is 
it a narrow path, wide path, track or metalled road? Secondly, the 
permissions - foot, horse, bike and car.

> Would it be possible to use something simpler or have it degrade to
> something simpler that the casual user can get right fairly easily.
>
> Doesn't the highway=bridleway imply by default foot=yes, horse=yes,
> bicycle=yes?  It seems redundant to have to state horse=yes.

TBH I don't really think highway=bridleway is appropriate, because the highway 
tag generally specifies the type of route, not its permissions. I would tend 
to go with foot=yes; horse=yes; bicycle=yes; highway=path (incidentally I 
would also replace 'footway' with 'path' so that bridleways which have the  
physical form of paths could be tagged as above). However, enough data has 
been tagged already with highway=bridleway|footway that to change it would 
probably create more hassle than it's worth.

> Would this be simpler and workable?
>
> highway=footway
> highway=bridleway
> highway=byway
> highway=rupp
> highway=cycleway
> highway=track

> public=yes (optional, assume permissive unless specifically tagged as
> public)
>
> Some examples:
> Permissive footpath: highway=footway
> Public footpath: highway=footway, public=yes
> Public bridleway: highway=bridleway, public=yes

The trouble with this is it ignores the fact that there are other types of 
(often unofficial) route, which have different permission combinations e.g. 
foot and horse, or foot and bike, or even horse only (no foot and bike 
traffic allowed). I think the existing scheme of highway for the type of 
path, and foot/horse/bicycle/car for the permissions covers all combinations 
excellently (with my reservations about highway=bridleway, above).

I think we're getting near to the point at which a critical mass of rights of 
way has been tagged already. If we are going to change, it should be done now 
before it becomes too big a job to convert.

Nick