[OSM-talk] Deprecation/move of incorrect tags
bruce.cowan at dsl.pipex.com
Sun Jul 15 15:15:50 BST 2007
On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 03:50 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On 7/13/07, Ian Sergeant <isergean at hih.com.au> wrote:
> > I am sorry, but I still think that "officially allowed, but not legally
> > enshrined", as opposed to a "right-of-way" enshrined in law, is a
> > distinction that is a very subtle one at best. It may only be relevant in
> > England, and even then possibly only to legal scholars rather than
> > cyclists.
> I'm not sure if we should pay attention to what's "legally-enshrined"
> given that across 200+ legal systems you're going to get a
> never-ending set of variations. Instead we should focus on what the
> situation in like on the ground.
Indeed, even in Britain itself, there are legal differences between
England/Wales and Scotland. In Scotland, all land is accessible. As long
as there is no damage, the owners can't prosecute you.
Of course there is an exception of that bloody idiot Ann Gloag's land.
I think rights of way exist, but the councils are encouraged to put
signs up indicating them, as opposed to having to.
Along the lines of the cycleway/footway debate, I don't see a difference
between highway=cycleway foot=true and highway=footway bike=true. There
might be a slight difference in which mode of transport is the most
usual. (footway usually unless the path is part of a NCN)
Bruce Cowan <bruce.cowan at dsl.pipex.com>
More information about the talk