Mike Harris
> -----Original Message----- > From: James Ewen [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 04 February 2010 00:44 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OSM-newbies] Fence in middle of street > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Dave F. > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Then yes, I put a node or a short line (if I can draw the fence as > >> well) tagged with barrier=gate. Then I split the highway > at the node > >> with the barrier > > > > Why? > > If there's a gate the highway is continuous & traversable. > Doing that > > would cause problems for the likes of routers. > > Why is this such an issue? When you put a bridge in a way, > you have to split the highway at both ends of the bridge, yet > no one complains that the routers won't be able to figure out > how to route someone down the road and across the bridge. > When a road surface changes, you have to split the way. Again > no problem with routers sending someone down the road. Same > thing when a road goes from single lane to double, splits > into a divided roadway, speed limit changes, or a multitude > of other tags changes that require the way be split. > > >> and add one of the access tags on the highway itself within the > >> restricted area (private/permissive/destination) > > > > Only if there clear indication such as a sign. > > Farm fields have barriers just to prevent the livestock > escaping. Why > > would you put an access tag to the field entrance gate? > > If there's a public footpath passing through that gate you wouldn't > > put an access tag, would you? > > Depending upon what part of the world you live in, gates can > be for more than limiting movement of livestock. Around here, > fences usually delineate the property line, which shows the > general public where the publicly accessible lands end, and > the privately owned land begins. > Here it is the accepted practice that you have no right to > enter privately held land, without the permission of the land owner. > > I found it rather interesting to note that in the UK, > property owners have to assert the right of ownership on > their lands, otherwise the public can wander about it at > will. I guess that's the difference between a country with a > couple hundred years of history versus thousands of years of > history. We came in and pretended that there was no history > in North America, and we could divvy it up from a clean slate. I don't know where the view came from that in England property owners have to assert the right of ownership ... Otherwise the public can wander about it at will". IMHO this is in general not true. A member of the public acting in that way would be a trespasser and committing a tort in law that would be subject to civil action. The only exception is the recent creation of "access land"; the public does have the "right to roam" on designated "access land" (as created and designated under the CROW Act). This is why in England (and Wales) the concept of "public rights of way" is so important (and has to be defended so vigorously). On these designated ways (as per the corresponding "definitive map" and "definitive statement") the public has the right to travel "the Queen's Highway" - either on foot or on a horse according to their status (bicycles are also now allowed where horses are allowed unless otherwise specified). In Scotland - and in many Continental European countries the situation is the reverse and more as described by whomever made the earlier post: i.e. the public has the right to roam everywhere (with certain common-sense exceptions - e.g. usually not in someone's garden or on cultivated land) unless otherwise specified - hence the expressions: allemansrätt (Sweden), Wegefreiheit (Austria - can't remember the correct translation for Germany), jokamiehenoikeus (Finland), etc. > James > VE6SRV > > > _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
