[OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Steve Hill wrote:
>Sent: 13 May 2008 9:47 AM
>To: talk at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
>
>
>I've come across a problematic way near me: It is a reasonably wide
>road, but the signs at each end say it is a bridleway.  It has a gate
>across the east end end so you can't drive along it from the east, but you
>can drive along it from the west end.  The west end has no restrictions
>other than a sign saying "No Though Road".  There are a couple of
>buildings down there, so someone might have legitimate reason for driving
>along it even though they can't get out at the other end.
>
>So I'm a bit unsure how to tag it - any suggestions?  Thoughts that spring
>to mind are either "highway=bridleway, motorcar=yes" or
>"highway=unclassified".  Presumably with a "highway=gate, motorcar=no"
>node on the gated end, or maybe "highway=gate, horse=yes, foot=yes".
>

This is an example of confusing the physical space with the legal
administrative description.

If it's a paved road from the end then unclassified, residential, or service
would be the appropriate tag for the physical. On top of that its horse=yes.
To add the bridleway specifically I would add bridleway=true as a tag as
well.

Just because it's a bridleway does not necessarily mean car=no. The
landowner will almost certainly have access over the route. Since it's a
bridleway however the public probably do not (unless its permissive).

Cheers

Andy


>  - Steve
>    xmpp:steve at nexusuk.org   sip:steve at nexusuk.org
>http://www.nexusuk.org/
>
>      Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
>talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG.
>Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1430 - Release Date:
>13/05/2008 7:31 AM