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

[Nick Whitelegg]

>Are there any use-cases for keeping the legal designations of
>rights-of-way (aware that this is very UK-specific..)

Since permissive tracks are not legal rights of way, and permission can be 
withdrawn at any time, I think we should distinguish between them.


>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

But that's what foot and horse are for.
highway=path could easily be used to distinguish public and permissive 
footpaths and bridleways.

e.g.

highway=path, foot=yes - public footpath
highway=path, foot=permissive - permissive footpath
highway=path, foot=yes, horse=yes - public bridleway
highway=path, foot=yes, horse=permissive - public footpath with permissive 
horse rights
highway=path, foot=permissive, horse=permissive - permissive bridleway
highway=path, foot=no, horse=permissive - horse only path (such things 
exist)

then if highway=path is replaced by highway=track in all the above cases, 
we can also distinguish physical surface. I think 
highway=path|track|service, surface=[whatever], and 
foot|horse|bicycle|motorcar = yes|no|permissive|private cover all cases I 
can think of.

Nick