[OSM-talk] Alleyways without RoW (Was: Private roads)

[Mike Collinson]

At 02:58 PM 12/07/2007, Stephen Gower wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 02:30:46PM +0100, Simon Hewison wrote:
>> 
>> It is quite a clear document, and differentiates between a public 
>> footpath and a cycle track, bridleways and the like.
>
>  OK, I haven't been precise in my language, I'll restate where I
>  need clarification:
>  
>  There are urban alleyways around where I live, which connect one
>  street to another.  They are not listed on the Definitive Map of
>  rights of way in Oxfordshire (I've checked this in the library),
>  therefore by the legal definition they are not footpaths.  Since
>  they do not run along a carrageway, by the legal definition they
>  are not footways.  I contend that it is just as legal to cycle
>  along these alleys as walk along them (indeed, in some cases, they
>  are marked as recommended routes on the County's cycle maps). 
>  Despite not being legal footpaths, they are important routes, so
>  they should be mapped on OSM.  Should they be tagged as
>  highway=footway or with some other tag?
>  
>  However, there is one example I can think of with very obtrusive
>  barriers which would prevent all but the most determined cyclist (I
>  was determined when I mapped it!) Should this be labeled cycle=no,
>  even though legally it is just the same as the other alleyways
>  mentioned above?
>
>  Help!

In similar cases, I've taken the position that if there are no obstructions to cycling it,  it should appear as a cycleway.  By obstructions I mean: a sign saying No Cycling, steps, kissing gates/stiles etc.  If there are such obstructions, I map it as a footway.  Not legalistic perhaps, but practical.

Hope that helps,
Mike