[OSM-talk] Permissive or Suggested
Nick Whitelegg
Nick.Whitelegg at solent.ac.uk
Mon Feb 5 12:17:14 GMT 2007
Sent by: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org
To: talk at openstreetmap.org
cc:
Subject: [OSM-talk] Permissive or Suggested
>I've been wondering about this for some time, but now really need to sort
it
>casue In the last week I've mapped the following a lot. Permissive
ways...
>On the Recomended UK public rights of way page (
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/UK_public_rights_of_way#Permissive_footpath
>) It says that I should attach foot=permiisve. I have 2 concerns with
this.
>1) The tag seems to be a bit messy and not fall into the neat
catagorising
>style that was originally made. Shouldn't it be permiisve=footway,
>bridleway....etc? Then 1 catagorie holds them all.
This seems more confusing to me, as we're already saying it's a footway or
a bridleway with the highway tag. That said it's probably best left as it
is until we have the separate tags for legal status and track width.
Then we could have:
highway = path or highway = track or highway = narrow_path (or whatever)
foot = yes
or whatever, for a public footpath and
highway = path or highway = track or highway = narrow_path
foot = permissive
for a permissive path.
The separate foot/horse/bicycle/car tags just seem to be the easiest way
to deal with the vast number of different permission combinations possible
- rather like having bits which can be set or unset, only with three/four
values (yes, no, permissive, private)
2) There are pemissive and suggested footways. Now although in the
>parragraph it says forestry commision land is a good example of
permissive,
>I don't think it really is. I can think of a few examples of where
>permissive doesnt seem correct. The New Forest. Scotland in General,
>Finland (from irc disccussion). These paths are permissive in the sence
>that they could be removed, but Its extreamly unlikely. I would say no
more
>likely than public footpaths being closed (e.g Foot and Mouth outbreak).
I guess I see your point there. I have tagged a whole range of things,
from an urban alleyway in Southampton, through paths in the New Forest, to
a route up a Scottish Munro as highway=footway; foot=permissive which, for
these three, probably not strictly correct. Maybe just "highway=footway"
could be used for these three, as although they are not rights of way,
they do have a legal "you can go there, perhaps with certain restrictions"
status (e.g. field sports, forestry operations)
>For Rendering I was thinking permissive could probabky be dashed lines,
but
>suggested could be desaturated. OS used desaturated and dashed as
dashed
>is how they usually mark there ways, and this works well, but it would be
>nice to render things differently to how they do it.
I'm playing around with different rendering on free-map.org.uk/mapnik
which is aimed to provide OSM maps specialised for the countryside. At the
moment rights of way are red and "permissive" tracks are magenta -
comments welcome.
Nick
More information about the talk
mailing list