[OSM-talk] Footways

[Etienne]

In my opinion, if there is a route that is so well trodden as to be visible
on the ground then its a path.  If its an official footpath that is
impassible because of electric fences, bulls, barbed wire and even
"trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again" notices then it is
not worth putting on the map.

In the case of your unmarked footpaths, if there is no visible trail on the
ground then, even if legally there is a right of way, nobody is actually
using it regularly.

Likewise for footpaths that meander across fields.  If there is a visible
path on the ground then follow that, if there isn't then a straight line
between the entry and exit point is probably the best you can do.

I have come across a couple of cases where there are very heavily used paths
that go across private land which at some time have been blocked by the
owner errecting large wire fences, only for fences to be broken down so that
people can still use the path.  People power rules.

Etienne

On 9/16/06, Ben Robbins <ben_robbins_ at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> For footways, (footpaths), the current method I was doing was to look at a
> map to see if if footpaths are around.  Then go out without the map and
> get
> guided by the sign posts that are around.
>
> The problems I have with this are, that there are 2 paths round me that
> have
> no signs/gate/path/styles anything.  Infact there is 2 electric fenses to
> cross and a padlocked gate, (its a horse field).    I know the path is
> definatly there, as I was looking at the council plans of the parish 2006.
> Also the person has been informed that they should be displaying the path.
> So I know the path is there, but i don't no without looking at a copywrite
> map.  I therefore havnt yet added the footpath to OSM.  how should I go
> about getting around this?
>
> Also Some footpaths follow straight lines, some follow the hedge line, and
> some curve randomly across fields.  Again I only no this though from
> looking
> at the council maps, and have no way of gathering this information myself
> without infringing copywrite.  Currently for this I have always put
> striaght
> lines between 2 signs/styles etc, unless it is clear that it isnt a
> straight
> line.
>
> Finally, what should I tag something that is a path, but is not a footpath
> by law, and can be removed at any point?.  These paths are all around
> woods
> and forests, but very few of them 'have' to be there.  how should I tag
> it,
> to state that it is phisicially a path, but not politically a footpath?
>
> Thanks
>
> Ben
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20060916/bccc59da/attachment.html>