[OSM-talk] Footways

[Nick Whitelegg]

On Saturday 16 Sep 2006 20:34, Ben Robbins 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?

IANAL for all my comments.

Opinion is divided on whether it's OK or not to copy path status from a 
definitive map. It's best not to, in case it is a violation of OS copyright 
(because the definitive map is overlaid on OS maps). A good many people 
believe it is. For instance, one cartographer at the SoC conference was of 
the fairly definite opinion that it was.

In other words, it's best not to add the path to OSM.

> 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.

Good idea. Exactly what I do. Better to get the line of the path slightly 
wrong than infringe copyright.

> 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?

highway=footway; foot=permissive. This indicates it's a permissive path, not 
an official right of way. Use highway=footway; foot=yes for a right of way.

Nick