Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
>Highway=no seems acceptable to me where a path is permanently physically >blocked by a building or such-like. We're not serving anyone by directing >people into wals. I do, however, disagree with its use to tag definitive >rights of way which are useable but which merely deviate from the route a >mapper mapped on the ground. Eg. I don't think a highway=no tag should be >added to a cross field definitive footpath just because a path round the >field has been mapped. In the case where a path has been permanently blocked, I would suggest disused:highway=footway/bridleway, abandonded:highway=footway or removed:highway=footway, depending on whether the path is still visible and whether the blockage would be relatively easy or difficult to remove. This seems to me to be much better than highway=no. Regards, Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 11:54, Adam Snape wrote: > I'd consider this particular proposed use of highway=no to mean "there is a > public highway here but there's no visible path on the ground" to be a > somewhat country-specific and counter-intuitive tagging practice. It's > certainly being suggested here as a solution to a country-specific issue > regarding the mapping of England and Wales' rights of way network. That's not precisely how I've been using highway=no or would advocate others to use it. I would only use highway=no in the case where there is a legal right of way that either is not or cannot be used on the ground. The "is not" might be a case where there is a regularly ploughed or cropped field and the cross-field path is never reinstated, so everyone always walks around the edge of the field instead. (Though if the cross-field line is usually passable, I'd possibly still use highway=path there.) The "cannot" might be a case where there's an impassible ditch or a house blocking the legal line (where higwhay=path would certainly not be appropriate). I'd be quite happy adding a highway=footway to e.g. a cross-field path even if there's no physical sign of it on the ground, as long as I'm confident it will be walked by users of the public footpath. In terms of how highway=no should be interpreted by data users, I would say highway=no means no more and no less than "there is not a (physical) highway here". I think the tagging is needed on objects (e.g. ways with designation=public_footpath) where you'd normally expect to find a highway=* tag, in order to distinguish this case from the case where it hasn't been established whether or what type of highway is present. (Some people will add rights of way lines to the map, and omit the highway tag until they've done a ground survey to determine what is there on the ground.) The main point I think, is that if you've tagged the definitive line of a Right of Way, and there's no suitable highway=* type for it, it's good to add highway=no, to confirm that's the case. This distinguishes that case from the case where the correct highway=* type still needs to be determined and added. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
On Tue, 5 May 2020, 13:26 Martin Wynne, wrote: > Is a "public right of way" a highway? > > I suggest not. It's a legal construct, similar to a boundary line. > > Perhaps it should be mapped as a separate way, sometimes sharing nodes > with a physical highway, sometimes not. > In English/Welsh law a highway is a right of passage, so a public right of way is a highway by definition. For OSM purposes? I don't know, but I've always assumed so. As discussed for practical reasons I wouldn't tag a completely inaccessible prow as a highway but I've never considered a physically worn path on the ground a requirement for being a highway=footway, bridleway etc. Adam > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
Is a "public right of way" a highway? I suggest not. It's a legal construct, similar to a boundary line. Perhaps it should be mapped as a separate way, sometimes sharing nodes with a physical highway, sometimes not. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
Hi, Highway=no seems acceptable to me where a path is permanently physically blocked by a building or such-like. We're not serving anyone by directing people into wals. I do, however, disagree with its use to tag definitive rights of way which are useable but which merely deviate from the route a mapper mapped on the ground. Eg. I don't think a highway=no tag should be added to a cross field definitive footpath just because a path round the field has been mapped. Kind regards, Adam On Tue, 5 May 2020, 12:35 Andy Townsend, wrote: > On 05/05/2020 11:53, Adam Snape wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > I'd consider this particular proposed use of highway=no to mean "there > > is a public highway here but there's no visible path on the ground" to > > be a somewhat country-specific and counter-intuitive tagging practice. > > It's certainly being suggested here as a solution to a > > country-specific issue regarding the mapping of England and Wales' > > rights of way network. > > For the avoidance of doubt, we already have "trail_visibility" as a > useful tag here. It's well used worldwide > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/trail_visibility#values and in > the UK https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/trail_visibility#values > and I (at least) use it to decide whether to render a path or not. > > That said, I'd be reluctant to use any other highway tag other than "no" > when there is a legal right of way but (say) someone's built a house > there so there is no physical access. By all means add > "designation=public_footpath" (with some sort of note) but please not > "highway=footway" (my apologies if no-one was suggesting this - it > wasn't 100% clear in the conversation). > > Personally I'd tend to just omit the highway tag for cases like this. I > wouldn't personally have a problem with people using "highway=no" for > them but I take Andy Allan's point earlier, and he has far more > experience dealing with how data consumers misuse OSM tags than I. > > On the "country specific" bit England and Wales are pretty unique with > their "public footpaths" etc. More civilised countries (like Scotland) > have something like "allemansrätten" in law. :) > > Best Regards, > > Andy > > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
On 05/05/2020 11:53, Adam Snape wrote: Hi Tom, I'd consider this particular proposed use of highway=no to mean "there is a public highway here but there's no visible path on the ground" to be a somewhat country-specific and counter-intuitive tagging practice. It's certainly being suggested here as a solution to a country-specific issue regarding the mapping of England and Wales' rights of way network. For the avoidance of doubt, we already have "trail_visibility" as a useful tag here. It's well used worldwide https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/trail_visibility#values and in the UK https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/trail_visibility#values and I (at least) use it to decide whether to render a path or not. That said, I'd be reluctant to use any other highway tag other than "no" when there is a legal right of way but (say) someone's built a house there so there is no physical access. By all means add "designation=public_footpath" (with some sort of note) but please not "highway=footway" (my apologies if no-one was suggesting this - it wasn't 100% clear in the conversation). Personally I'd tend to just omit the highway tag for cases like this. I wouldn't personally have a problem with people using "highway=no" for them but I take Andy Allan's point earlier, and he has far more experience dealing with how data consumers misuse OSM tags than I. On the "country specific" bit England and Wales are pretty unique with their "public footpaths" etc. More civilised countries (like Scotland) have something like "allemansrätten" in law. :) Best Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
Hi Tom, I'd consider this particular proposed use of highway=no to mean "there is a public highway here but there's no visible path on the ground" to be a somewhat country-specific and counter-intuitive tagging practice. It's certainly being suggested here as a solution to a country-specific issue regarding the mapping of England and Wales' rights of way network. Perhaps other countries do use highway=no in this manner but it isn't well documented and I could hardly blame consumers of OSM data from not interpreting it correctly. Kind regards, Adam On Tue, 5 May 2020, 09:59 Tom Hukins, wrote: > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 11:08:16PM +0100, Adam Snape wrote: > > Most data consumers won't be expecting this highly country-specific > > tagging of highway=no > > Why do you consider "highway=no" country-specific? Taginfo suggests > it's used across Europe and occasionally elsewhere: > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=no#map > > Tom > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 11:08:16PM +0100, Adam Snape wrote: > Most data consumers won't be expecting this highly country-specific > tagging of highway=no Why do you consider "highway=no" country-specific? Taginfo suggests it's used across Europe and occasionally elsewhere: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=no#map Tom ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
