[OSM-talk] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
Alex Mauer
hawke at hawkesnest.net
Tue May 20 22:04:34 BST 2008
Andy Allan wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Cartinus <cartinus at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>> So to sum it up: Do the ways currently tagged with "bridleway" conform to your
>> narrow definition or is there already no data to loose, because it is already
>> use for ways which are physically, but not legally paths for horses.
>
> I would consider all the existing tagging as of suspect
> interpretation. For example, foot=yes is almost entirely meaningless
> as "right of pedestrian access enshrined in law" since it's been added
> by default to every highway=footway in potlatch for some time.
Agreed. I would expect that all the access tags have that problem, not
just foot. I don't think the "yes" value has ever been defined in that
manner, so I'm certain it's been applied to routes which are not
rights-of-way.
I know I've always understood "yes" to mean that "[vehicle type]s are
capable of traversing this route, and are not forbidden to use it."
Certainly nothing currently in the wiki appears to contradict that.
I'm also quite certain that footway/cycleway/bridleway have been applied
to routes which do not follow the UK definition. (In other words, there
is already no right-of-way data to lose).
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
More information about the talk
mailing list