[OSM-talk] path or byway ?

Nick Whitelegg Nick.Whitelegg at solent.ac.uk
Mon Jul 21 10:28:34 BST 2008

>What exactly are we trying to achieve with highway=byway? I can think of
>two possible uses but both seem to have unresolved issues.

>The first is simply to record that a particular way exists and has
>certain access rights. In this instance I don't see highway=byway being
>any different to highway=track, foot=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes,
>motorcycle=yes, motorcar=yes and the latter would probably make more
>sense to non-uk people.

>The second is to record the exact legal classification of the way as a
>byway rather than another entity with similar access permissions e.g. a
>"Green Lane" (marked with green dots on OS maps with the key: "Other
>routes with public access"). In this case the current practise of
>tagging motorcar=no to indicate a restricted byway is insufficient as
>this afternoon I walked along a BOAT that had also had a traffic order
>preventing use by motorcars.

>I'm personally starting to favour tagging byways as highway=track with
>the appropriate access permissions in the same way that the map features
>page now defines highway=footpath as highway=path, foot=yes. The only
>issue I can see is that we would need to add a horsedrawn access tag to
>differentiate between bridleways and restricted byways.

I have to say I agree 100% with this, though I think we need to reach a 
consensus before changing the way we tag.


More information about the talk mailing list