[OSM-talk] Argh! - Wholesale deletion of foot|horse=yes tags

[Peter Miller]

> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:05:44 +0000
> From: Andy Street <mail at andystreet.me.uk>
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Argh! - Wholesale deletion of foot|horse=yes
> 	tags
> To: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Cc: Nick Whitelegg <Nick.Whitelegg at solent.ac.uk>
> Message-ID: <1194102344.5506.25.camel at localhost>
> Content-Type: text/plain
> 
> On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 17:20 +0000, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> > Just noticed that in a very large area (about 10x10 miles) to the
> > northeast of Southampton, the foot/horse=yes tags have been removed from
> a
> > large number of footpaths and bridleways. Result is that Freemap is
> > showing them magenta (permissive) rather than red (official).
> >
> > Sorry to be picky but if this was intentional, please leave them in :-)
> > They're essential to distinguish between official and unofficial rights
> of
> > way.
> 
> Yes, I noticed this too. I contacted the user concerned via the OSM
> website earlier in the week who informed me that they had removed the
> tags because footways were implied foot=yes (and likewise for
> bridleways) and therefore redundant.
> 
> My understanding of the ROW tags has always been that if a tag is absent
> that we have no knowledge of the access permissions and the end user of
> the data should use a default which is sensible for their application.
> Is this correct? How do other mappers interpret these tags?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Andy Street
>

I am glad this has come up. There are some important Ways in my patch where
cycling is normal and unchallenged, the track is wide enough, the surface is
ok and there are no signs to the contrary but however cycling is not
strictly legal.

For one of them (Rushmere Common) I have created a wikipedia article to give
the history, and as a basis for our local cycle campaign group to argue with
the powers-that-be to get the status changed (btw the article has a nice OSM
map on it btw). Notice that National Cycle Route 1 has to be signed round
the common which is all very stupid. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rushmere_Common

How should I tag that? Personally I would like the rendering to show it as a
cycle route (not a footpath), although one might at some time want to
produce the 'legal' version of the map which shows it as a footpath so I
don't want to loose the legal information.

Map Features defines the footway/bridleway/cycleway tags as being to do with
the 'legal' status of the route, and also the 'bicycle=yes' tag is to do
with the legal status so there is nowhere for the accustomed information.


Any suggestions?



Peter