On 03/10/16 09:23, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> highway=footway or path should really mean "it's just a physical path",
> we shouldn't really be assuming things about access. Then add explicit
> access tags if we know it's permissive (or designation=public_footpath
> if it's known to be a RoW).
I'm
gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale
On 02/10/16 13:06, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>
> Indeed - unless they have foot=yes, foot=permissive, access=permissive
> (etc) or designation=public_footpath, we are in no way telling them th
avefoxfa...@btinternet.com
> To: for...@david-woolley.me.uk; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale
>
>
> On 02/10/2016 14:21, David Woolley wrote:
> > So I would say that highway=path was equivalent to highway=path;
On 02/10/2016 14:21, David Woolley wrote:
So I would say that highway=path was equivalent to highway=path;
foot=yes; bicycle=yes; horse=yes; motor_vehicle=no (spellings may be
wrong). highway=footway would imply yes to just foot. Renderers and
routers will, I think follow this policy.
I
David Woolley wrote:
> So I would say that highway=path was equivalent to highway=path;
> foot=yes; bicycle=yes; horse=yes; motor_vehicle=no (spellings may
> be wrong). highway=footway would imply yes to just foot. Renderers
> and routers will, I think follow this policy.
I can't speak for
On 02/10/16 15:06, Andy Townsend wrote:
No - in England and Wales an unspecified access tag surely means just "don't
know" especially as if (as seems to be the case for one of the ways here) it's
mapped from aerial imagery.
So HGV's may be permitted on the typical footway, without an access
On 02/10/16 13:06, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Indeed - unless they have foot=yes, foot=permissive, access=permissive
(etc) or designation=public_footpath, we are in no way telling them that
they are public access.
Whether or not there is a formal statement of this anywhere an
unspecified access
on the map, it doesn't implicitly
mean it's public.
From: Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net>
Sent: 02 October 2016 11:33:37
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale
Frederik Ramm quoted Mr Angry:
&
Frederik Ramm quoted Mr Angry:
> "NONE of the paths indicated on the map that proceed north through
> Upper Booth Farm are public footpaths"
And indeed they're not tagged as such: they are tagged as the perennially
useless highway=path, some of them with highway=permissive, while the
Pennine Way
Hi
Although not the type of feedback we want, it is actually good to hear that
people are using the map. I have walked through here and may have some
pictures for reference so will see what I can do without a survey. It is a
well used walking area so the owners are unlikely to dispute public
On 01/10/16 22:33, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I know
that property owners sometimes have different ideas about which paths
are private than the law.
I think OSM mappers tend to under-code private property. There are
areas where every car park in a block of flats is implicitly coded as
public.
Hi,
OSMF board has received a complaint by the operator of the Upper
Booth campsite, namely that they're seeing an increase of people
trespassing due to OpenStreetMap featuring the campsite toilet as a
public toilet.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/53.36523/-1.84623
I fixed that for
12 matches
Mail list logo
