[OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways

[Thomas Wood]

On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 09:40 +0100, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> >It's not quite a 1:1 mapping - a UK bridleway also means "cycles 
> >permitted by right" and a whole host of other stuff, so it's a 
> >valuable piece of information in itself.
> 
> >By all means tag the individual users (horse=yes, bicycle=yes, etc.), 
> >but I'd consider the official bridleway status a useful, taggable fact 
> >in itself.
> 
> What I'd like to get some idea of is what people as a whole consider 
> highway=bridleway on its own(with no foot/horse/etc tags added) to mean - 
> do people on the whole consider this to be a public bridleway, or a 
> permissive bridleway? On freemap I assume permissive unless foot/horse=yes 
> is added, rather like highway=footway is assumed to be permissive (in view 
> of the large number of permssive footways in towns).
> 
> Nick
> 

If I come across a bridleway sign, I'll tag it as highway=bridleway,
assuming that horse=yes is implied. As Andy says, how else would I know
it's a bridleway?

I generally find that footpaths in towns is an odd situation, some are
clearly regarded as public rights of way (some I've seen even having
full road name-like signs informing you of that [0]). Signing differs
wildly between london boroughs, Sutton having relatively few signs
(although an oddly signed bridleway down the back of houses[1] does
exist). On the other hand, Croydon signs every single one of the
footpaths I've seen with their own reference number and often a
destination - even if it's just the next road.

If something specifically informed me that it was permissive, I'd tag up
horse=permissive etc.

[0]
http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.35598&lon=-0.16353&zoom=16&layers=0BFT
Footpath No. 77, The Avenue (ref=78)
[1] Bridleway north of the railway line in [0]

-- 
Regards,
Thomas Wood
(Edgemaster)