[OSM-talk] Alleyways without RoW (Was: Private roads)
mike at ayeltd.biz
Mon Jul 16 20:46:38 BST 2007
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?
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,
More information about the talk