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

[Ben Robbins]

Is this within the New Forest National park?

If it is, then OS tends to mark it all as just permiisive as they are on 
mostly open land.

My family live in the New forest, so I can make some comparisoins to where 
I'm usually mapping to your example.

It sounds like it is either just a commanly used route on open land (1), or 
an addional right of way (2)

1) Like in Scotland for example, there are paths that are marked, but 
because everywhere is open OS tends to mark them in the same way as 
permiisive, but use them in the secne that they are suggested footpaths, but 
you free to step off them.  At some point it may be worth splitting up and 
suggesting having 'permissive', and 'suggested' tags seperate, but I would 
tag permissive at the moment.

2)  There are tracks round me wich are always used but have no clear marking 
of any access rules.  Some have been there since the dawn of time it would 
seem, and are just other rights of way.  In looking at an OS map I can see 
the one near my village is marked as an addional right of way, with red 
circles along it.  OSM doesn't really have its own version of this yet.

If you've looked at the other data, and its ok to use it, then permiisive 
bridleway sounds about right.

Ben




From: Nick Whitelegg <nick150971 at yahoo.co.uk>
To: Ben Robbins <ben_robbins_ at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] What would you do if...
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:46:24 +0000 (GMT)



Ben Robbins <ben_robbins_ at hotmail.com> wrote:

 >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 just this minute (by using an appropriate google search relating to 
the places it links) I've found some evidence on the web that it is 
frequently used by horse riders. I'd imagine this could be taken as 
non-copyright evidence of horse use?

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


Nick



_________________________________________________________________
Find Love This New Year With match.com! http://msnuk.match.com


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk



---------------------------------
  Web email has come of age. Don't settle for less than the All New Yahoo! 
Mail.

_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your mobile.  
http://www.msn.txt4content.com/