Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Rob Nickerson]

Martin wrote:

>But presumably the designers of OSM intended only one of these meanings
>for the highway tag. But I still don't know whether it is physical
>appearance or legal status. The wiki seems to be mixed up on this. For
>example:
>
> 

Hi Martin,

I really think you are over-thinking it. We have to remember that OSM was
not "designed", rather it evolved. In the early days it was UK centric and
when highway tag were being developed the proposer looked at the system of
roads and rights of way we have in the UK. Hence highway=motorway,
highway=trunk, ... highway=bridleway were selected to match how things were
often *referred* to in the UK. As it happens the way we in the UK refer to
things tends to align closely to the legal status (or some other official
status). Over time some of this has become less relevant - for example the
highway=trunk tag is of reducing relevance due to "de-trunking" of roads
(see wikipedaia [1]).

The bigger issue however came when OpenStreetMap grew globally. The way
that other countries refer to things doesn't always match us. As examples
"motorway" is not a term used globally, the concept of "trunk" roads is
alien to some people and many counties do not have the 4 classes of public
right of way that we do. As such other tags started to come in to use. In
particular the highway=path tag.

Now this new global tagging caused confusion in the UK as some tags seem to
be very similar (e.g highway=path and highway=footway). We also found
people were mapping using highway=footway when it was not an explicit
public right of way.

After much back and forth the UK settled on the designation=* tag as the
right way to signify the legal status (e.g. designation=public_footpath).
This is described in the link I previously shared [2]. This solution means
that people can use highway=path, highway=footway, highway=trunk (or
whatever else) and add the designation=public_footpath tag to indicate it's
legal status. It is a win for the community:

- those adding designation=public_footpath are doing so intentionally to
mark the legal status.
- we do not have to "police" the use of highway=footway; as in, there is no
need to contact people to tell them to only use highway=footway if it is a
public right of way (this option of trying to "police" the use of a tag was
never going to be a viable solution).

As such we evolved with the times and use highway tag to mark what you
*observe* (surely this is both physical appearance AND evidence of use
because the evidence of use IS observed physical appearance unless you are
setting up camera traps!).

The one oddity it leaves is that highway=path and highway=footway are very
similar. Noting my point above that it is not possible to "police" use,
these tags started to be used interchangeably. A few years later the
maintainers of the default map style (OSM Carto) made an update to the
style of the map so that highway=footway and highway=path are shown
identically. They then started showing a difference for surface. So if we
map highway=footway/path and add a surface=paved tag then it renders
differently. Again this is a win for the community as it encourages use of
the surface tag which provides valuable context.

So in summary, please follow the principle of "first map the feature" and
then "add the legal designation". Map the feature according to what you
observe (again I note that surely this is the same as the evidence of use).

Aside: A public footpath may not have big signs of use. If it's just a few
people using it occasionally then you won't get the marks in the ground
that you observe on some of our more heavily used paths. Consider this and
the time of year (paths overgrown in spring/summer may be cut back and
accessible again later in the year) before picking highway=disused. Disused
should be a rare exception.

I hope this helps. Key thing is to not get hung up on the history of how we
got here. Just go for it, use the additional tags (designation and surface)
to add valuable info and have fun mapping :-)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trunk_road#De-trunking:_United_Kingdom
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_access_provisions

Best regards,
*Rob*
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Martin Wynne]

or record its actual usage? 


Yes, in as much as "record its actual usage" is essentially the same as 
"describe its usage".


Hi Andy,

I was meaning "describe its physical appearance".

For example, for:

 http://85a.uk/track_query_960x648.jpg

I could tag it as:

highway=track  (physical appearance), or

highway=footway (legal status), or

highway=disused (evidence of use).

But presumably the designers of OSM intended only one of these meanings 
for the highway tag. But I still don't know whether it is physical 
appearance or legal status. The wiki seems to be mixed up on this. For 
example:


1. highway=secondary (*legal status* - B road, and physical appearance, 
condition, etc. is irrelevant).


Actual width, etc., to be set as separate (optional) tags.

Whereas:

2. highway=track (*physical appearance* - wide enough for farm vehicles, 
and legal status is irrelevant).


Actual status, designation, etc., to be set as separate (optional) tags.

cheers,

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Martin Wynne]

It's entirely reasonable to think "to my mind X means ..." but when 
tagging thing in OSM it makes sense to try and match the approach of 
more people - in OSM, the usage of highway=footway is much wider than 
your definition.


Thanks Andy. But you also wrote recently:

>  just pick whatever seems most appropriate to you. You've been there, 
other people haven't


I've looked again at

 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway

and I'm a bit puzzled which usage of footway is wider than my definition?

It all comes back to my previous question -- is highway= intended to 
*describe* the feature, or indicate its legal status, or record its 
actual usage? That could be three different things.


When I started mapping it was impressed upon me the importance of 
mapping what you see, what is actually on the ground. But as far as 
highways are concerned, and the highway overlay on most renderings, that 
seems not to be the case.


cheers,

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Andy Townsend]

On 15/03/2019 18:24, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:


Are there any data users who use 'highway=footway;foot=yes' to 
distinguish from other footways?



Sort-of - depending on other tags 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html can display things 
differently based on that, but it'd be a pretty niche set of 
circumstances.  See 
https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L614 
.


Personally I tend to add "foot=yes" when that is the correct tag rather 
than rely on "assumed defaults" or the implications of 
"designation=public_footpath" because it's more explicit.  It's always a 
tradeoff between how many tags to add and how many is too many - for 
example I wouldn't add "oneway=no" to the majority of roads that 
aren't,  but it would make sense to mark "the only road across town that 
isn't one-way" like that.


Best Regards,

Andy



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Andy Townsend]

On 15/03/2019 19:21, Martin Wynne wrote:



To my mind:

highway=footway means a narrow smooth physical object capable of being 
walked along in safety.


It's entirely reasonable to think "to my mind X means ..." but when 
tagging thing in OSM it makes sense to try and match the approach of 
more people - in OSM, the usage of highway=footway is much wider than 
your definition.



But I'm sure someone will disagree, and the wiki is no help in 
deciding the matter. :)


Indeed - rather than what the last person to edit the wiki wrote, I'd 
try and follow global and local tagging norms.  This doesn't mean that 
there aren't excellent wiki pages that people have taken great care of - 
just that there are some that don't live up to that (and some that 
actually contradict each other).


Best Regards,

Andy




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Martin Wynne]

Are there any data users who use 'highway=footway;foot=yes' to 
distinguish from other footways?


I also find much of the wiki unclear.

To my mind:

highway=footway means a narrow smooth physical object capable of being 
walked along in safety.


If you can't do that, it is not a footway. So for example, where there 
is a stile in a hedge set back from a road, I would terminate the 
footway at the stile, and link from there to the centre of the road with 
simply highway=yes for routing purposes.


foot=yes means that the general public are allowed to use it at all 
times for any reason. As opposed to private, permissive, destination 
only, etc.


foot=designated + designation=public_footpath means that the said path 
is also shown on the highway authority's definitive map as a legal right 
of way. Many urban footpaths are not so shown.


But I'm sure someone will disagree, and the wiki is no help in deciding 
the matter. :)


cheers,

Martin.



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Nick Whitelegg]

I would urge the use of 'foot=yes' or 'foot=permissive' for paths which are 
_not_ rights of way but _do_ have public access (implicitly or explicitly) 
rather than simply 'highway=footway' or 'highway=path'. There needs to be a way 
to distinguish between non-rights-of-way which definitely have public access 
and those which may not - so that, for example, routing software will not try 
and route you along some path which is private but is just missing a 'PRIVATE' 
sign currently.


For instance a path between roads in towns which is not a right of way I'd use 
'foot=yes', while one in the countryside marked as permissive I'd use 
'foot=permissive'.



Nick


From: Dave F via Talk-GB 
Sent: 15 March 2019 18:24:40
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

>From the footnote of that table:
"The United Kingdom Tagging 
Guidelines<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines>
 state that highway=path, when used it the UK, implies "a generic narrow path 
that is used in conjunction with access tags". This makes the default "yes" 
assumption dubious."

What does foot=yes mean?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_examples
Some wiki pages say it's 'legal right' another says "A urban path without any 
legal status suitable for walking."

This is a reason why I take much of the wiki with a pinch of salt. 'foot=yes' 
should be used in combination with the access tag (usually when it's  set to 
'no' or 'private') not as a stand alone sub tag (ie highway=footway;foot=yes).

Are there any data users who use 'highway=footway;foot=yes' to distinguish from 
other footways?

DaveF


On 15/03/2019 11:05, David Woolley wrote:
On 15/03/2019 01:24, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
AFAIA, neither tag had any impied permissions or condition attributes.

They do, and they are country specific.

<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#United_Kingdom><https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#United_Kingdom>



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Bridleway or track?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

From the footnote of that table:
"The United Kingdom Tagging Guidelines 
 
state that highway=path, when used it the UK, implies "a generic narrow 
path that is used in conjunction with access tags". This makes the 
default "yes" assumption dubious."


What does foot=yes mean?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_examples
Some wiki pages say it's 'legal right' another says "A urban path 
without any legal status suitable for walking."


This is a reason why I take much of the wiki with a pinch of salt. 
'foot=yes' should be used in combination with the access tag (usually 
when it's  set to 'no' or 'private') not as a stand alone sub tag (ie 
highway=footway;foot=yes).


Are there any data users who use 'highway=footway;foot=yes' to 
distinguish from other footways?


DaveF


On 15/03/2019 11:05, David Woolley wrote:

On 15/03/2019 01:24, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

AFAIA, neither tag had any impied permissions or condition attributes.


They do, and they are country specific.

 





___
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] Bridleway or track?

[David Woolley]

On 15/03/2019 01:24, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

AFAIA, neither tag had any impied permissions or condition attributes.


They do, and they are country specific.





___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I believe there's a difference between discouraged & deprecated.

i agree path & footway are synonymous. When they're substituted for each 
other there's no difference in meaning.


The path proposal never produced a clear, unique definition.

AFAIA, neither tag had any impied permissions or condition attributes.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Path

DaveF

On 15/03/2019 00:09, Warin wrote:
Path and footway are the same .. to me. When I first joined OSM I was 
told they had different default permissions to allow UK people to do a 
short way of tagging those permissions, true or false I don't know. 
Seemed like a nasty way of doing it to me. In Australia .. the view 
was taken - country side = path, city = footway. Still nasty.


I disagree that path is being 'actively discouraged'. If it were then 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath would be marked 
'depreciated'.


On 15/03/19 00:24, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

Hi

Nothing except the fact people walk along a way is implied by path or 
footway. The legality or ability to use it is defined with 
sub/adjective tags, such as width.


The path tag is actively being discouraged. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333


OSM-Carto rendering doesn't distinguish it from 'footway' any longer.

Cheers
DaveF

On 12/03/2019 09:17, Devonshire wrote:
Both footway and path infer a way of a certain width suitable for 
people to use, neither infers any legal right of use as far as I am 
concerned.


If starting over path is a better word as people outside of OSM have 
clue what it is but otherwise I see them as interchangeable.


Kevin





___
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



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Warin]

Path and footway are the same .. to me. When I first joined OSM I was 
told they had different default permissions to allow UK people to do a 
short way of tagging those permissions, true or false I don't know. 
Seemed like a nasty way of doing it to me. In Australia .. the view was 
taken - country side = path, city = footway. Still nasty.


I disagree that path is being 'actively discouraged'. If it were then 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath would be marked 
'depreciated'.


On 15/03/19 00:24, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

Hi

Nothing except the fact people walk along a way is implied by path or 
footway. The legality or ability to use it is defined with 
sub/adjective tags, such as width.


The path tag is actively being discouraged. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333


OSM-Carto rendering doesn't distinguish it from 'footway' any longer.

Cheers
DaveF

On 12/03/2019 09:17, Devonshire wrote:
Both footway and path infer a way of a certain width suitable for 
people to use, neither infers any legal right of use as far as I am 
concerned.


If starting over path is a better word as people outside of OSM have 
clue what it is but otherwise I see them as interchangeable.


Kevin





___
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] Bridleway or track?

[Andy Townsend]

On 14/03/2019 15:55, Martin Wynne wrote:

... . Do you mean wheel ruts, footprints?



I really, really wouldn't worry about it.  There are always edge cases - 
just pick whatever seems most appropriate to you.  You've been there, 
other people haven't been, and while a photo is useful it's only one 
view with the light in one place.  If you really want to add more 
detail, maybe a width tag would be a good idea?


Best Regards,

Andy



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Devonshire]

Yes and yes. Just tag it as a footway then with the appropriate designation.

Kevin

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019, at 4:14 PM, Martin Wynne wrote:
> On 14/03/2019 15:29, Devonshire wrote:
> > If there are parallel tracks visible (even if maybe historic) I would tag 
> > it as a track, if a single track is visible then tag it as a footway.
> 
> Thanks Kevin. Do you mean wheel ruts, footprints?
> 
> In the case of my photo, there was no evidence of any use at all, by 
> foot or wheel:
> 
>  http://85a.uk/track_query_960x648.jpg
> 
> Perhaps it is not a highway at all, despite being waymarked as a public 
> footpath?
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Martin.
> 
> ___
> 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] Bridleway or track?

[Martin Wynne]

On 14/03/2019 15:29, Devonshire wrote:

If there are parallel tracks visible (even if maybe historic) I would tag it as 
a track, if a single track is visible then tag it as a footway.


Thanks Kevin. Do you mean wheel ruts, footprints?

In the case of my photo, there was no evidence of any use at all, by 
foot or wheel:


 http://85a.uk/track_query_960x648.jpg

Perhaps it is not a highway at all, despite being waymarked as a public 
footpath?


cheers,

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Devonshire]

If there are parallel tracks visible (even if maybe historic) I would tag it as 
a track, if a single track is visible then tag it as a footway.

Kevin

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019, at 3:19 PM, Martin Wynne wrote:
> > The path tag is actively being discouraged. 
> 
> Which makes it more necessary to have some direction on what constitutes 
> a "track". Is sufficient width for vehicles enough by itself to convert 
> a footpath to a track, or does there need to be some evidence of actual 
> vehicular use?
> 
> It's a common question in these parts. Here is another track? or path? 
> -- which is it? On the right is an old track which is legally a public 
> footpath. It's wide enough for vehicles, but all vehicular traffic has 
> long since transferred itself to crossing the field on the left instead:
> 
>  http://85a.uk/track_query_960x648.jpg
> 
> (not the same track as my previous photos)
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Martin.
> 
> ___
> 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] Bridleway or track?

[Martin Wynne]

The path tag is actively being discouraged. 


Which makes it more necessary to have some direction on what constitutes 
a "track". Is sufficient width for vehicles enough by itself to convert 
a footpath to a track, or does there need to be some evidence of actual 
vehicular use?


It's a common question in these parts. Here is another track? or path? 
-- which is it? On the right is an old track which is legally a public 
footpath. It's wide enough for vehicles, but all vehicular traffic has 
long since transferred itself to crossing the field on the left instead:


 http://85a.uk/track_query_960x648.jpg

(not the same track as my previous photos)

cheers,

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi

Nothing except the fact people walk along a way is implied by path or 
footway. The legality or ability to use it is defined with sub/adjective 
tags, such as width.


The path tag is actively being discouraged. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333


OSM-Carto rendering doesn't distinguish it from 'footway' any longer.

Cheers
DaveF

On 12/03/2019 09:17, Devonshire wrote:

Both footway and path infer a way of a certain width suitable for people to 
use, neither infers any legal right of use as far as I am concerned.

If starting over path is a better word as people outside of OSM have clue what 
it is but otherwise I see them as interchangeable.

Kevin





___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Devonshire]

Both footway and path infer a way of a certain width suitable for people to 
use, neither infers any legal right of use as far as I am concerned.

If starting over path is a better word as people outside of OSM have clue what 
it is but otherwise I see them as interchangeable.

Kevin


On Tue, Mar 12, 2019, at 7:37 AM, Adam Snape wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, 12:54 Devonshire,  wrote:
>> __
>> I have personally deprecated highway=bridleway|byway etc. as the combination 
>> of highway=footway|track|service and designation=public_footpath etc. 
>> contains more useful information both for map rendering and for active map 
>> users. Whether you wan't to do the same is up to you.
>> 
>> Kevin
> 
> Byway is universally depreciated these days. 
> 
> It seems somewhat odd to reject bridleway whilst using footway which shares 
> the same arguable 'flaw' of tagging both physical appearance and implied 
> access in one tag. For those unhappy with these tags, as Dave mentions, the 
> highway=path tag was designed to physically describe a physical path and be 
> used in combination with access tags.
> 
> Now, I can understand using either the 'classic' (highway=footway or 
> highway=bridleway) or 'alternate' (highway=path + access tags) tagging 
> schemes but I'd think that a hybrid resulting in combinations like 
> highway=footway horse=designated is best avoided .
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
>> 
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Martin Wynne]

On 11/03/2019 12:53, Devonshire wrote:

I have personally deprecated highway=bridleway|byway etc. as the combination of 
highway=footway|track|service and designation=public_footpath etc. contains 
more useful information both for map rendering and for active map users. 
Whether you wan't to do the same is up to you.


Thanks Kevin.

This still leaves unanswered the question of what is a track?

The wiki refers only to its *width* as the deciding matter and nothing else:

"This tag represents roads for mostly agricultural use, forest tracks 
etc.; that are suitable for two-track vehicles, such as tractors or 
jeeps. If the way is not wide enough for a two-track vehicle, it should 
be tagged as highway=path."


Is it still a track if it is wide enough for such use, and clearly has 
been a track in times past, is shown as such on old maps, but is now 
blocked off for vehicular access and there is no evidence of current 
vehicular use?


Here is a bit more of the public bridleway which I posted previously:

 http://85a.uk/blocked_track1_960x580.jpg

Is this

a) highway=bridleway + access designations (deprecated ?)

b) highway=path + access designations (too wide ?)

c) highway=track + access designations (no physical vehicular access ?)

cheers,

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Adam Snape]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, 12:54 Devonshire,  wrote:

> I have personally deprecated highway=bridleway|byway etc. as the
> combination of highway=footway|track|service and
> designation=public_footpath etc. contains more useful information both for
> map rendering and for active map users. Whether you wan't to do the same is
> up to you.
>
> Kevin
>

Byway is universally depreciated these days.

It seems somewhat odd to reject bridleway whilst using footway which shares
the same arguable 'flaw' of tagging both physical appearance and implied
access in one tag. For those unhappy with these tags, as Dave mentions, the
highway=path tag was designed to physically describe a physical path and be
used in combination with access tags.

Now, I can understand using either the 'classic' (highway=footway or
highway=bridleway) or 'alternate' (highway=path + access tags) tagging
schemes but I'd think that a hybrid resulting in combinations like
highway=footway horse=designated is best avoided .

Kind regards

Adam
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 10/03/2019 23:45, Martin Wynne wrote:
There's clearly no evidence of 4 wheeled vehicles, so it should be 
marked as a bridleway, but It's advisable to check the whole length 
as sections can be used by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get 
between adjacent fields.


It's a public bridleway, with the usual "evidence", so no argument 
about that.


But is it highway=bridleway or highway=track?


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack

Specifically this, except substitute path for bridleway:
If the way is not wide enough for a two-track vehicle, it should be 
tagged as highway=path.




There is evidence of recent wheeled use, which I think was a tractor 
gaining access across the adjacent fields for the purpose of 
hedge-trimming alongside it. It clearly was once a vehicular track.


Then split the way up. Tag the sections accessible by vehicles as
highway=track
horse=designated
foot=designated
designation=public_bridleway
surface=*

width=* is also useful for both bridleway & track


What I think I'm getting at is this -- is the highway= tag intended to 
represent the physical appearance, or the intended use?


With track, it probably has to be a bit of both, Physical appearance 
should provide an indication of intended use. Unlike metalled highways, 
tracks, unfortunately, rarely have clarifying reference signs like the 
A4, M62 etc


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

highway=bridleway was, I believe, conceived to be used as a shortcut tag 
for the below, but if the way is a track, they should be included.


DaveF

On 11/03/2019 08:49, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:

Access tags for a bridleway in the UK or in my experience  England and Wales 
should be horse=designated, foot=designated and bicycle=designated. As Andy 
mentioned the important tag is designation=public_bridleway.



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Rob Nickerson]

>More generally, does highway= indicate the physical appearance as
surveyed -- or the intended use, as designated?

Hi Martin,

First map the feature: Use the highway tag to describe how it looks
physically.

Add the legal status: Use designation=* to add a legal status (e.g.
designation=public_bridleway) as the most important tag in England & Wales.
The horse=yes tag is useful for global users who don't pick up the
designation tag in their routing services.

This is as documented at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_access_provisions#First_map_the_feature

Quote: "Note: Rather than being influenced by the name of the access
provision, tag the feature according to what you observe on the ground. For
example a 'Public Footpath' that runs along the route of a farmer's track
should be tagged as highway=track rather than highway=footway."

Hope this helps,
*Rob*
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Devonshire]

I have personally deprecated highway=bridleway|byway etc. as the combination of 
highway=footway|track|service and designation=public_footpath etc. contains 
more useful information both for map rendering and for active map users. 
Whether you wan't to do the same is up to you.

Kevin

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019, at 11:14 AM, Martin Wynne wrote:
> On 11/03/2019 08:49, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
> 
> > Access tags for a bridleway in the UK or in my experience England and Wales 
> > should be horse=designated, foot=designated and bicycle=designated. As Andy 
> > mentioned the important tag is designation=public_bridleway.
> 
> Thanks Phil. I'm doing all that, but it's not the question.
> 
> The question is:
> 
>  highway=bridleway or highway=track ?
> 
> I'm not much wiser on how to decide between them.
> 
> More generally, does highway= indicate the physical appearance as 
> surveyed -- or the intended use, as designated?
> 
> If it's the latter, as for example highway=primary, how is the actual 
> appearance to be mapped and tagged?
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Martin.
> 
> ___
> 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] Bridleway or track?

[Martin Wynne]

On 11/03/2019 08:49, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:


Access tags for a bridleway in the UK or in my experience  England and Wales 
should be horse=designated, foot=designated and bicycle=designated. As Andy 
mentioned the important tag is designation=public_bridleway.


Thanks Phil. I'm doing all that, but it's not the question.

The question is:

 highway=bridleway or highway=track ?

I'm not much wiser on how to decide between them.

More generally, does highway= indicate the physical appearance as 
surveyed -- or the intended use, as designated?


If it's the latter, as for example highway=primary, how is the actual 
appearance to be mapped and tagged?


cheers,

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[phil]

On Monday, 11 March 2019, Warin wrote:
> On 11/03/19 10:45, Martin Wynne wrote:
> >> There's clearly no evidence of 4 wheeled vehicles, so it should be 
> >> marked as a bridleway, but It's advisable to check the whole length 
> >> as sections can be used by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get 
> >> between adjacent fields.
> >
> > It's a public bridleway, with the usual "evidence", so no argument 
> > about that.
> >
> > But is it highway=bridleway or highway=track?
> >
> > There is evidence of recent wheeled use, which I think was a tractor 
> > gaining access across the adjacent fields for the purpose of 
> > hedge-trimming alongside it. It clearly was once a vehicular track.
> >
> > What I think I'm getting at is this -- is the highway= tag intended to 
> > represent the physical appearance, or the intended use?
> 
> Arr ..
> I'd tag the present use.
> 
> highway=track
> motor_vehicle=private?
> horse=yes
> surface=unpaved
> 
> Where the 'wheeled use' is not evident then I'd tag highway=bridleway etc
> 
Access tags for a bridleway in the UK or in my experience  England and Wales 
should be horse=designated, foot=designated and bicycle=designated. As Andy 
mentioned the important tag is designation=public_bridleway.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Warin]

On 11/03/19 10:45, Martin Wynne wrote:
There's clearly no evidence of 4 wheeled vehicles, so it should be 
marked as a bridleway, but It's advisable to check the whole length 
as sections can be used by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get 
between adjacent fields.


It's a public bridleway, with the usual "evidence", so no argument 
about that.


But is it highway=bridleway or highway=track?

There is evidence of recent wheeled use, which I think was a tractor 
gaining access across the adjacent fields for the purpose of 
hedge-trimming alongside it. It clearly was once a vehicular track.


What I think I'm getting at is this -- is the highway= tag intended to 
represent the physical appearance, or the intended use?


Arr ..
I'd tag the present use.

highway=track
motor_vehicle=private?
horse=yes
surface=unpaved

Where the 'wheeled use' is not evident then I'd tag highway=bridleway etc.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Martin Wynne]

There's clearly no evidence of 4 wheeled vehicles, so it should be 
marked as a bridleway, but It's advisable to check the whole length as 
sections can be used by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get 
between adjacent fields.


It's a public bridleway, with the usual "evidence", so no argument about 
that.


But is it highway=bridleway or highway=track?

There is evidence of recent wheeled use, which I think was a tractor 
gaining access across the adjacent fields for the purpose of 
hedge-trimming alongside it. It clearly was once a vehicular track.


What I think I'm getting at is this -- is the highway= tag intended to 
represent the physical appearance, or the intended use?


cheers,

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 10/03/2019 23:19, Warin wrote:

Is there evidence of bridleway use?


The title of the thread is "Bridleway *or* track?"

but It's advisable to check the whole length as sections can be used 
by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get between adjacent fields.


Then the sections will have to be separated and individually tagged.


Err... Yes




{beer? I think I'll just have a cup of tea. (meaning .. don't take any 
of this discussion personally)}


Who was doing that?

DaveF

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Warin]

On 11/03/19 10:03, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:



On 10/03/2019 22:37, Martin Wynne wrote:

Thanks for the comments.

I'm surprised some folks can be so dogmatic,


A surprising comment considering on your 'rarity' claim.


Comment? If a clear distinction between two things is wanted then there 
needs to be a dogmatic answer? :)




Changing the subject a little, is it still a track if wide enough for 
a vehicle, but the landowner has physically blocked vehicles from 
entering it with barrier=block


There's clearly no evidence of 4 wheeled vehicles, so it should be 
marked as a bridleway, 

Is there evidence of bridleway use?
but It's advisable to check the whole length as sections can be used 
by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get between adjacent fields.


Then the sections will have to be separated and individually tagged.

{beer? I think I'll just have a cup of tea. (meaning .. don't take any 
of this discussion personally)}






___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 10/03/2019 22:37, Martin Wynne wrote:

Thanks for the comments.

I'm surprised some folks can be so dogmatic,


A surprising comment considering on your 'rarity' claim.

Changing the subject a little, is it still a track if wide enough for 
a vehicle, but the landowner has physically blocked vehicles from 
entering it with barrier=block


There's clearly no evidence of 4 wheeled vehicles, so it should be 
marked as a bridleway, but It's advisable to check the whole length as 
sections can be used by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get 
between adjacent fields.


Cheers
DaveF

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Philip Barnes]

On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 19:37 +, Andy Townsend wrote:
> > but it's a rare bridleway that is only wide enough for a horse,
> 
> As DaveF has already suggested, I suspect that's hugely
> geographically variable - I can think of a few examples in
> Derbyshire, Notts and Yorkshire where "public bridleways" couldn't
> accommodate a horse, unless it wasn't much bigger than a large dog.
> 
> In addition to that things can change from track to bridleway and
> back (in OSM terms) as they get overgrown and as hedges get cut back.
> 
> At the end of the day you just do the best job you can based on one
> visit. Personally I render these things mostly based on the
> designation so as long as that's correct I'm happy :)
> 
And to back up what Andy says, some bridleways are just a legal line
crossing farmland.

Phil (trigpoint)


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Andy Townsend]

> but it's a rare bridleway that is only wide enough for a horse,

As DaveF has already suggested, I suspect that's hugely geographically variable 
- I can think of a few examples in Derbyshire, Notts and Yorkshire where 
"public bridleways" couldn't accommodate a horse, unless it wasn't much bigger 
than a large dog.

In addition to that things can change from track to bridleway and back (in OSM 
terms) as they get overgrown and as hedges get cut back.

At the end of the day you just do the best job you can based on one visit. 
Personally I render these things mostly based on the designation so as long as 
that's correct I'm happy :)

Best Regards,
Andy


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Warin]

On 04/03/19 10:22, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:



On 03/03/2019 22:54, Warin wrote:
If a field is used for a helicopter landing .. should you tag it as a 
heliport?
If a one off, no, but if occasional then Helipad is appropriate in 
that case.




My answer is - what is it regularly used for and is suitable for that 
use? Not what it could be or seldom used for.


Please remember 'regularly' doesn't mean the same as 'frequently'. It 
can still be 'seldom used' & regular.


Frequency of use should have no bearing on tagging. if it's able to be 
used for certain purpose, then it can be tagged to indicate it. It 
doesn't have to be a primary tag.


A helicopter can land where ever there is space.
e.g. all football pitches can be used by a helicopter, therefore you 
would have all football pitches tagged as helipads?


The fact that something can be used for a certain purpose does not mean 
that it is used for that purpose.
And even if it is used for that purpose, but seldom, it may have only 
done with special permission, so it is a temporary thing - which OSM 
does not map.






If it has not been used for some time then disused:*=* could be useful. 


Disused indicates an official closure, not how rarely it's used.


Err  it indicates that a feature is no longer used, but could be put 
back into use with little effort.
Nothing necessarily  'official'. If I see a shop has closed .. I do not 
know if it is 'official'. But I know it is 'disused' from the state of it.



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 03/03/2019 22:54, Warin wrote:
If a field is used for a helicopter landing .. should you tag it as a 
heliport?
If a one off, no, but if occasional then Helipad is appropriate in that 
case.




My answer is - what is it regularly used for and is suitable for that 
use? Not what it could be or seldom used for.


Please remember 'regularly' doesn't mean the same as 'frequently'. It 
can still be 'seldom used' & regular.


Frequency of use should have no bearing on tagging. if it's able to be 
used for certain purpose, then it can be tagged to indicate it. It 
doesn't have to be a primary tag.




If it has not been used for some time then disused:*=* could be useful. 


Disused indicates an official closure, not how rarely it's used.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Warin]

On 04/03/19 03:11, Martin Wynne wrote:

What is the dividing line between:

 highway=bridleway  designation=public_bridleway

and

 highway=track  designation=public_bridleway

The wiki says a track must be suitable for farm vehicles, but it's a 
rare bridleway that is only wide enough for a horse, and not for a 
small tractor or 4x4 type vehicle.


Which taken logically would mean that highway=bridleway would hardly 
ever be used. But it's a useful indication for map users when rendered 
-- in the UK at least a bridleway is almost always a public right of 
way. Whereas a way rendered as a track is often private.


The standard renderings for a track differentiate between surface 
conditions, but not access.


Rule 1: Ignore the renders! Tag the truth.

Some renders do show access restrictions.



Does a track require actual evidence of recent vehicular use? The wiki 
doesn't say so. And must the vehicle be motorised? For example if the 
last time a way was used by a wheeled vehicle was a horse and cart 50 
years ago, was it then a bridleway or a track? And what is it now?


If I tag a way as a bridleway, and then a few weeks later see a 
tractor using it, should I change it to a track?


If a field is used for a helicopter landing .. should you tag it as a 
heliport?


My answer is - what is it regularly used for and is suitable for that 
use? Not what it could be or seldom used for.


If it has not been used for some time then disused:*=* could be useful.

Yes, there will be some judgement required.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I use evidence on the ground - is it wide enough for any type of four 
wheel vehicle & are there signs of wheel tracks.


I would disagree that bridleways only wide enough for a horse are rare.

If a track is designated as a public_bridleway by signage or definitive 
statement then there is right of access even if privately owned.


AFAIA a cart (or "a vehicle which is not mechanically propelled") the 
designation has to be a restricted_byway (or higher)


I would tag your example as a track.

Overpass in the UK returns:
bridleway/public_bridleway = 15495
track/public_bridleway = 9973

Please remember there are more renderings than just the 'standard' one 
on the main page.




On 03/03/2019 16:11, Martin Wynne wrote:

What is the dividing line between:

 highway=bridleway  designation=public_bridleway

and

 highway=track  designation=public_bridleway

The wiki says a track must be suitable for farm vehicles, but it's a 
rare bridleway that is only wide enough for a horse, and not for a 
small tractor or 4x4 type vehicle.


Which taken logically would mean that highway=bridleway would hardly 
ever be used. But it's a useful indication for map users when rendered 
-- in the UK at least a bridleway is almost always a public right of 
way. Whereas a way rendered as a track is often private. The standard 
renderings for a track differentiate between surface conditions, but 
not access.


Does a track require actual evidence of recent vehicular use? The wiki 
doesn't say so. And must the vehicle be motorised? For example if the 
last time a way was used by a wheeled vehicle was a horse and cart 50 
years ago, was it then a bridleway or a track? And what is it now?


If I tag a way as a bridleway, and then a few weeks later see a 
tractor using it, should I change it to a track?


For example, is this a bridleway or a track?

 http://85a.uk/worc_way_1600x980.jpg

Thanks,

Martin.



___
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

[Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Martin Wynne]

What is the dividing line between:

 highway=bridleway  designation=public_bridleway

and

 highway=track  designation=public_bridleway

The wiki says a track must be suitable for farm vehicles, but it's a 
rare bridleway that is only wide enough for a horse, and not for a small 
tractor or 4x4 type vehicle.


Which taken logically would mean that highway=bridleway would hardly 
ever be used. But it's a useful indication for map users when rendered 
-- in the UK at least a bridleway is almost always a public right of 
way. Whereas a way rendered as a track is often private. The standard 
renderings for a track differentiate between surface conditions, but not 
access.


Does a track require actual evidence of recent vehicular use? The wiki 
doesn't say so. And must the vehicle be motorised? For example if the 
last time a way was used by a wheeled vehicle was a horse and cart 50 
years ago, was it then a bridleway or a track? And what is it now?


If I tag a way as a bridleway, and then a few weeks later see a tractor 
using it, should I change it to a track?


For example, is this a bridleway or a track?

 http://85a.uk/worc_way_1600x980.jpg

Thanks,

Martin.



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb