[OSM-talk] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)

[Robert (Jamie) Munro]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

OJ W wrote:
| Are there any use-cases for keeping the legal designations of
| rights-of-way (aware that this is very UK-specific..)
|
| e.g. perhaps someone wants to use our maps to check that all the
| rights of way in their area are properly accessible.  Or someone using
| an OSM map is challenged by a landowner and 'the map says I'm
| permitted to herd sheep along this path'
|
| we seem to have lost 'public footpath' information already by using
| the same 'footway' tag for anywhere that you appear to be able to walk
| nevermind if there's a footpath sign at the end.  proposals like this
| might make 'real bridleways' disappear too, into a mix of places that
| at first glance seem passable by horse-riders

Perhaps we should tag them legal=footpath/bridleway/whatever

| (p.s. before just proposing a new tag for legal status, consider that
| lots of existing bridleways/footpaths/byways will have already been
| tagged based on the RoW signs and we might want to keep that
| information)

Yes, but lots have been tagged not based on legal status, and we don't
want to misrepresent those. It's better to have no data than wrong data
on a way.

Robert (Jamie) Munro
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkguvKQACgkQz+aYVHdncI2oCgCfaAgpf3RL4tHolDoJcdF6iVYO
kpwAn3vrWTFoVYReKNhi7AP6NTV2WEoh
=arHg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----