[OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over "derived" geographic data in the UK

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Nick Whitelegg
>Sent: 20 November 2008 3:27 PM
>To: Donald Allwright
>Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold
>over "derived" geographic data in the UK
>
>>Actually, the current tagging doesn't seem to have enough granularity
>here. The highway=path, highway=footway, foot=yes, horse=designated etc.
>tags >doesn't seem to include a way of actually saying if a path is a
>public right of way or a permissive path.
>
>It does. The "yes" value for a tag means that it's a legal right of way
>for that mode of transport (foot, horse, bicycle). The "permissive" value
>means it isn't, it's just a permissive path.

The problem is that it's not entirely clear.

foot= might mean I can walk it. The word doesn't imply that it's a
right-of-way. Much better to put the administrative designation on an
access= tag

I know this is somewhat different from general convention but the confusion
is the reason that generally I have not added foot= or access= tags for
footways.

Cheers

Andy

>
>Nick
>
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
>talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.7/1798 - Release Date: 18/11/2008
>8:59 PM