On 7 May 2011 18:45, Robert Whittaker (OSM) <robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 5 May 2011 18:01, Peter Miller <peter.mil...@itoworld.com> wrote: > > Should we add something about permissive and private paths to this view? > If > > we had that then the job to do locally would be to convert all the grey > > paths and turn them into one of the colours. Currently anything that is > > permissive will stay grey and the risk will be that other people will > come > > and review the same path time and time again wasting loads of time. > > On paths/tracks, designation=* is only supposed to be for recording a > definite legal status of the route. There's also suggested tagging for > *signed* permissive routes, but I don't think we'd want to add > anything for private paths (we have access=private, etc for things > like that). There will be a lot of customary unsigned paths that are > effectively permissive but wouldn't be signed as such (and hence we > won't use the designation tag on them), and lots of paths in towns > that aren't officially designated as public rights of way, but are > nevertheless considered legal to use. > In time it may be useful to tag them as customary if there is evidence that they have used without hindrance for a significant time without any indicate to the contrary. For now I am happy to leave them. We haven't even considered the 'access' tag which may also contain relevant information and might be worth using to indicate paths that are private in due course. We have also not looked a 'foot=* and horse=* tagging which I see as being alternative ways of indicating the same thing. It will probably be worth adding those as aliases in due course. > > Thus I don't think it's ever going to be an aim to get rid of all the > grey lines. Though if we can reduce the number of "unknown" coloured > designation values that might be good. > The use of customary would reduce uncertainty and resurveying (and also the amount of grey). For now lets leave it. > > Here are a few suggestions for some additional values that could be > given colours, which would probably make the view even more useful: > > 1/ As well as the various highway=* ways that you're considering, I'd > probably also include highway=track, as quite a few countryside routes > (especially near me) are tracks rather than paths/footways. > Thanks. I have now added it to the map view. > > 2/ I'd give colours to the the two common permissive versions: > permissive_footpath and permissive_bridleway. It would be good if > their colours could be related to those for the public versions. Maybe > a paler yellow and a paler blue could be used? > > I have adjusted public_footpath to be slightly orange and re-purposed yellow for permissive_footpath. I have also updated the key. I have added permissive_bridleway as light blue. > 3/ I don't know if anyone else has been doing this, but I've been > using designation=unclassified_highway for tracks that are officially > public highways, but aren't really suitable for regular driving. > (Hence it didn't really seem right to use highway=unclassified; but > other suggestions for tagging these welcome.) These are typically > marked on OS maps as "Other Routes with Public Access". You can check > their status by asking the local highways authority. Just like a > normal road, you can legally drive, ride, or walk on these. They're > pretty much like a byway_open_to_all_traffic in that respect, though > there will be some subtle legal differences, hence the need for > different tagging. Based on the signs that some local authorities use > for these, I'd suggest colouring them in black. > I have not added this on yet and suggest we leave until there is more of a consensus on the appropriate tagging. > > I hope those suggestions are useful. > > Very much so and thanks for the feedback. Keep it coming Regards, Peter > Robert. > > -- > Robert Whittaker > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
