[OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway

[Mike Harris]

Richard
 
Thanks for this ... very helpful - a few comments -
 
1. Path:  I would prefer to use highway=footway for a path that has (almost
always illegally) not been reinstated across a ploughed field IF I know it
to be a public right of way, e.g. from the black and yellow waymarks that
people like me put onto public footpaths! (After all, after intervention
this path may well get restored to its legal condition!) Similarly for other
situations where the path is not good or clear but IS waymarked as a public
footpath. I would tend to minimise usage of highway=path - and use it mostly
for paths that are not well-defined and not known to be a right of way -
typically in rural or upland areas. I would not add foot=yes - as, if I know
this to be true, I would then be using highway=footway. Most rural public
footpaths are not easily seen on the ground - but most are waymarked at
intervals; I want to give these highway=footway status to distinguish them
from informal paths - which are also numerous in undeveloped and unfarmed
rural areas.
 
2. Footway:  I broadly agree. I would also use this for any way that is
clearly unsuitable for higher levels of user (cyclists, horses, etc.) and
known (e.g. from signage or otherwise) to be a public footpath - urban or
rural. I would add foot=yes.
 
3. Bridleway:  I only use this for ways that I know to be a public bridleway
(and thus have rights for pedestrians, horse riders and - almost always -
cyclists). This is because the word 'bridleway' has legal meaning (in
England and Wales) - unlike 'footway'. If I do not know (from blue and
yellow signage or otherwise) that it is a public bridleway I would tend to
use only highway=track and add a tracktype= tag to indicate the surface for
the benefit of cyclists etc. (I don't wish to imply a legal right by using
the tag 'bridleway' unless I know this to be true). I would add foot=yes,
bicycle=yes (unless known to be untrue) and horse=yes.
 
4. Cycleway:  In the countryside I tend to use this for paths that are
clearly physically suitable for, and are signed for, cyclists and seem on
the ground to have been primarily created as a cycle route but are not known
to be public bridleways (where I would give precedence to highway=bridleway
as a more well-defined category). I would also use it in urban areas for
appropriately blue signed cycle paths and also for dedicated cycle tracks
more or less alongside roads etc. (As said before I would not regard ncn/rcn
etc. as a reason for highway=cycleway - I would use a relation for this). I
would add foot=yes (unless known to be untrue) and bicycle=yes.
 
5. Track:  Broadly agree - unless the track is known (e.g. from signage) to
be a public bridleway - in which case I would prefer to use the more well
defined highway=bridleway. I also usually try to add a tracktype= tag
(grade1 to grade5) as per the wiki to give a bit more information about the
surface (and thus suitability for various types of user) - where I have
recorded or remember this from the survey. I would not add
foot/horse/bicycle=yes etc. unless known to be true.
 
6. Byway:  I also use the tag highway=byway for tracks that are known, e.g.
from plum or red signage or from finger posts (or from personal knowledge in
my area) to be a 'Restricted Byway' (RB, the term that has replaced 'Road
Used as Public Path' or RUPP - no longer exist) or a 'Byway Open to all
Traffic' (BOAT) - again adding tracktype= if possible. I would add foot=yes,
horse=yes, bicycle=yes. For a RB I might add motorcar=no, motorcycle=no if
it looked as if it could be driven but was signed as an RB (i.e. motorised
traffic banned). For a BOAT I would stay silent on motorcar/motorcycle=
unless I had specific local knowledge as the use of a BOAT by motorised
traffic is defined on a case by case basis.
 
In summary:
 
Despite the length of my response, I do not think we are very far apart.
Where there is no signage (and no other non-copyright way to determine legal
status) I would be in pretty close agreement with you. Where there is
additional evidence regarding legal status I would generally try to use this
- in particular (a) to add the information that a path is in fact a public
footpath (highway=footway, foot=yes) rather than just a 'path'
(highway=path), (b) to avoid highway=bridleway unless I had evidence that it
was a public bridleway (because 'bridleway' - unlike 'footway' - carries
legal implications), (c) to use 'track' in a parallel way to 'path' - i.e.
to distinguish a track that is known to be a public right of way of some
kind (by using highway=bridleway or highway=byway), (d) to add the use of
highway=byway for known RBs and BOATs.
 
I am obviously a bit biased by being one of the people who spend time
putting up those multi-coloured waymarks on public rights of way of various
kinds!
 
I have found this exchange very useful and will be continuing to strive to
get the balance right between 'basic physical status' and 'rights'
information drawn from signage on the ground (or local knowledge)!
 
Happy mapping!
 
Mike Harris
 


  _____  

From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxford at googlemail.com] 
Sent: 24 March 2009 13:18
To: osm
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway


Mike asked for examples of "basic physical status". 
 
1) Path - poorly-defined path (either because of low usage, or because
there's no advantage in taking any particular line, or because someone's
ploughed it)
 
2) Footway - well-defined, but not suitable for horses, due to accesses
(stiles / kissing gates), and vulnerability of surface to damage from heavy
animals. Most UK country footpaths fall into this category. Category also
covers urban made-up ways from which cycles are specifically banned. Some
are designated public footpaths.
 
3) Bridleway - well-defined, and usage by horses accepted, with gates for
access. Surface unlikely to be made-up, and likely to be unusable by
cyclists, especially in woods, and especially after rain. Routing a bike on
such a way wouldn't be clever. Most UK country bridleways fall into this
category, but not urban ones.
 
4) Cycleway - surface made up and fairly smooth. Probably no objection to
horses using it occasionally, though situation likely to be unclear unless
it's legally a Bridleway, or there's some horse-unfriendly gates. Possibly
occasional access for farm vehicles / cars. Legal designation could be just
about anything - so long as the landowner doesn't mind. Might be a case for
narrow cycleways to be coded as cycle&footway, to show you will probably
have to cycle differently, and to avoid claiming undue ownership/priority
for cyclists.
 
5) Track - surface made up though may be a bit rough, and may have grass
growing down the middle. Probably no formal access restrictions, though hard
work for cyclists, and could well damage a normal car. Landowner may limit
access. Also covers forest tracks, though surface likely to be less well
made up, and prone to being impassable for some vehicles in wet conditions.
Legal designation could be anything or nothing.
 
The general point is that legal designation and physical status don't always
align.
 
Richard (not the one responsible for Potlatch)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090326/c2f16b62/attachment.html>