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
 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?

[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