Just to confuse matters further:
In England:
Cyclists are forbidden on "public footpaths" (a legally defined term that is
not synonymous with "path" or "footpath"). There is no signage indicating
this - it is just the law. However, a landowner may "permit" cyclists -
without giving them any rights. This is rare but is often the case on canal
towpaths where British Waterways often allows cyclists and the towpath is
also often (but not always) a public footpath.
Cyclists are allowed on "public bridleways" (a legally defined term) unless
specifically forbidden by local rules.
Cyclists are allowed on "restricted byways" (a legally defined term) and on
"byways open to all traffic" (a legally defined term).
Cyclists are allowed on all public vehicular roads except motorways.
Cyclists are allowed on multiuser urban paths (usually surfaced, usually not
"public rights of way") - these are usually either dual use or segregated by
a dividing parallel line and signed accordingly.
In reverse
Pedestrians are allowed everywhere on public rights of way (the legal
categories listed above) and have priority on them.
Pedestrians are allowed on cycleways unless specifically excluded (and I am
not aware of any example of this in England other than the segregation of
multiuser paths into pedestrian and cyclist tracks; I am not aware of any
route where a cyclists may go but not a pedestrian).
Pedestrians are also allowed on all public vehicular roads (except
motorways) and have priority on them (!) - something that I would not like
to insist on in practice as the competition with a 40te truck is a little
one-sided. Pedestrian access is never signed per se except on urban paths
and private paths; pedestrian exclusion is only signed per se on motorways.
As for the 'path' tag I only use it when no other tag applies but there is a
route (visible on the ground or not, but if not then used at least by
walkers as a route) that is not physically accessible to or intended for
motor vehicles or ('normal' - i.e. I would not consider the most extreme and
adventurous of mountain bikers) cyclists.
I believe this to be approximately consistent with the wiki. I have
discussed elsewhere the more detailed tagging of English public rights of
way and believe a working compromise and consistency exists among those who
care about these (especially with the increasing recent use of the tag
"designated" (not "designation") to indicate legal status.
>From the lengthy discussion of path vs. footway it would appear that there
are significant regional differences in practice. In some regions, including
- I believe - the UK a wider use of "path" would require a change to the
tagging of most paths/footways. In other regions it seems, I learn, that the
reverse might apply.
I can only see three types of solution out of the lengthy discussion:
1. Live with the present situation - perhaps trying to get consistency on a
regional basis but accepting that there are inter-regional differences in
the situation both in real life and in terms of what has become, rightly or
wrongly, accepted practice. How much does this affect routing and external
use of OSM data? Does it matter?
2. Aim for greater consistency by resolving the debate using conventional
wiki means - i.e. discussion groups, 'voting', etc. and adjust wikis and
practice accordingly.
3. Aim for greater consistency by resolving the debate via a more
"expert-led" process - whether by working group, SOSM, or whatever - with or
without ratification by the general community of mappers.
The debate as to the preferred alternative approach seems to agree that the
approaches are more-or-less mutually exclusive. Many contributors also
comment - correctly in my view - that there are reasons underlying regional
differences and that there are considerable differences in practice (e.g.
jokamiehenoikeus, allemannsratt ... or not) and in linguistics (even down to
the difference between the meaning of the words "footway" and "sidewalk" in
England and the USA ... two nations divided by a common language). Further
linguistic confusion arises because most non-native English speakers under
40 speak American and most over 50 speak (British) English.
I am not going to 'vote' here - at least not yet! - as between these three
alternatives but hope to clarify my own mind (if no-one else's) by this
contribution to the discussion. I would merely ask that decisions be taken
in a manner that takes account, so far as practical, of different regions
and of different languages and does not unduly penalise those unable - for
whatever reason (geography, finance, physical ability ...) - to attend
conferences.
Hope this is not unhelpful!
Mike Harris
-----Original Message-----
From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org]
On Behalf Of talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 11 August 2009 21:41
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: talk Digest, Vol 60, Issue 79
Send talk mailing list submissions to
talk@openstreetmap.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of talk digest..."
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
