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

[Andy Robinson]

On 04/11/2007, Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> > 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?


Personally I don't believe the footway/bridleway/cycleway designations
should have any relevance to the legal status because OSM should never
attempt to be authoritative on what is legal and what is not. Therefore I
use these designations to tag the signed or logical usage. If I find a path
that has no signs and I can cycle along it then I mark it as a cycleway. If
however a similar path has a "public footpath" sign then I mark it as a
footpath because that's what it states it is. Similarly for bridleway. There
are some exceptions however. For example I find that many small parks have
no "no cycling" signs but have paved narrow paths. These I generally tag as
footway if I do not believe the width of the path is wide enough to
accommodate both a pedestrian and a cyclist without one or the other leaving
the path. If its wide then it gets a cycleway tag.

Cheers

Andy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20071104/7633438e/attachment.html>