[OSM-talk] What would you do if...

[Nick Whitelegg]

Meant to send this to the list. Damn those mail clients which send to the original sender by default....

>I wouldn't assume anything.  There a many many examples of this.  >Horses may 
>freqeunety go somewhere, but they may have private permission to do >so.  
>Unless I can tell that the public have taken horses down there or >walked 
>down there I would just leave it as a track.  Fox hunts usually make >tracks 
>like this.

The thing with this one though is it bears all the hallmarks of a 'green lane' - of which there are many in Hampshire - and which frequently are unmarked by rights of way signs. I was sufficiently confident of its status to walk along it without fear of being ordered off - however there was no documentary proof. 'Green lanes' in general have horse rights too, AFAIK.

>I wouldn't go with C though.  I think things  should be tagged as the >highest 
>known status, but not asumed to be higher than you know.  Otherwise >OSM data 
>would have no real value..

The trouble with *not* tagging paths which are not signposted as rights of way (but may be deduced as being permissive routes, at least) is that you end up with an incomplete map. I think it's fair to assume that an unmarked footpath that has regular use (evidenced by being well-worn) is a permissive right of way. This particular example was more wobbly than most, though, as it took the form of a cart track.

Anyhow as it happens, just now I've found some evidence on the web that it is frequently used by horse riders. To open up a wider question: could I now add the name of the way 'Woodcote Lane' (quoted in the walk writeup at the URL below) to OSM without violating any copyright? As more countryside gets mapped, we need definitive guidelines to this sort of thing:

http://byrobb.tripod.com/wah/id9.html


Nick



 		
---------------------------------
  Yahoo! Cars NEW - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online search now  
---------------------------------
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20070129/8e783929/attachment.html>