Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
If it's truly "open access land" then it's not permissive, it's merely foot=yes, surely? Dan Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 13:20 schreef Michael Collinson : > > Perhaps there should be a access/foot=open_access tag? > > Paths across open access areas aren't really "permissive". First, you > usually have some rights to wander off the path/make your own. Second, > there is (always?) some sort of regulatory/public right involved, it > isn't just dependent on the largesse of a landowner. > > In my area of Yorkshire, there are a number of open access areas where > unofficial paths have evolved over recent years. I have mapped these as > foot=yes, but that misses the extra right-to-roam dimension. > > Mike > > On 2020-07-11 12:57, Philip Barnes wrote: > > On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 11:51 +0100, Nick wrote: > >> That would be great, bearing in mind access rights differ (e.g. > >> Scotland > >> and England). > > Not just England, Wales too. > > > > Phil (trigpoint) > > > >> A really interesting point regarding temporary land-use (forestry, > >> farming etc.) restrictions - ideal if it was dynamic to ensure that > >> it > >> is always updated (otherwise users woiuld ignore). It would > >> certainly > >> help land managers and users. Imagine if this was in place for Covid > >> restrictions. > >> > >> Nick > >> > >> On 11/07/2020 11:37, Dan S wrote: > >>> Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary > >>> guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate > >>> consensus? It would be super helpful > >>> > >>> Dan > >>> > >>> Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg > >>> : > >>>> .. to follow that up, a good example where I have used > >>>> foot=permissive en-masse is the New Forest. It's an unusual case > >>>> in that there are no rights of way (except, to guarantee access I > >>>> suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths are implicitly > >>>> open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a > >>>> permissive path' notice. > >>>> > >>>> Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to > >>>> forestry operations. > >>>> > >>>> Nick > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From: Nick Whitelegg > >>>> Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11 > >>>> To: Talk GB > >>>> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in > >>>> the countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas > >>>> with public access, which are not rights of way but which > >>>> nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 'Private' or > >>>> 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the > >>>> landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public > >>>> use. > >>>> > >>>> I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain > >>>> 'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It > >>>> might have public or permissive use. It might be private. At the > >>>> moment we don't know'. > >>>> > >>>> I tend to use: > >>>> designation for rights of way; > >>>> foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive > >>>> paths; > >>>> foot=yes for urban paths; > >>>> access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' > >>>> sign. > >>>> > >>>> Nick > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From: Adam Snape > >>>> Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20 > >>>> To: Talk GB > >>>> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common > >>>> > >>>> It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, > >>>> foot=yes as an error just because foot access is implied by > >>>> default. Whilst there might be the tiniest bit of redundancy I > >>>> can't see any particular reason to remove it and, indeed, there > >>>> might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to > >>>
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
Perhaps there should be a access/foot=open_access tag? Paths across open access areas aren't really "permissive". First, you usually have some rights to wander off the path/make your own. Second, there is (always?) some sort of regulatory/public right involved, it isn't just dependent on the largesse of a landowner. In my area of Yorkshire, there are a number of open access areas where unofficial paths have evolved over recent years. I have mapped these as foot=yes, but that misses the extra right-to-roam dimension. Mike On 2020-07-11 12:57, Philip Barnes wrote: On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 11:51 +0100, Nick wrote: That would be great, bearing in mind access rights differ (e.g. Scotland and England). Not just England, Wales too. Phil (trigpoint) A really interesting point regarding temporary land-use (forestry, farming etc.) restrictions - ideal if it was dynamic to ensure that it is always updated (otherwise users woiuld ignore). It would certainly help land managers and users. Imagine if this was in place for Covid restrictions. Nick On 11/07/2020 11:37, Dan S wrote: Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate consensus? It would be super helpful Dan Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg : .. to follow that up, a good example where I have used foot=permissive en-masse is the New Forest. It's an unusual case in that there are no rights of way (except, to guarantee access I suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths are implicitly open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a permissive path' notice. Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to forestry operations. Nick From: Nick Whitelegg Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11 To: Talk GB Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in the countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas with public access, which are not rights of way but which nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 'Private' or 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public use. I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain 'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It might have public or permissive use. It might be private. At the moment we don't know'. I tend to use: designation for rights of way; foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive paths; foot=yes for urban paths; access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' sign. Nick From: Adam Snape Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20 To: Talk GB Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as an error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might be the tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to remove it and, indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to an implied value. OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat for the end user that a way might be closed. I only add it where a route is explicitly stated to be permissive on the ground, is actually known or likely to be shut from time to time, or is clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and housing estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways. Kind regards, Adam ___ 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 ___ 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 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 11:51 +0100, Nick wrote: > That would be great, bearing in mind access rights differ (e.g. > Scotland > and England). Not just England, Wales too. Phil (trigpoint) > > A really interesting point regarding temporary land-use (forestry, > farming etc.) restrictions - ideal if it was dynamic to ensure that > it > is always updated (otherwise users woiuld ignore). It would > certainly > help land managers and users. Imagine if this was in place for Covid > restrictions. > > Nick > > On 11/07/2020 11:37, Dan S wrote: > > Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary > > guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate > > consensus? It would be super helpful > > > > Dan > > > > Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg > > : > > > .. to follow that up, a good example where I have used > > > foot=permissive en-masse is the New Forest. It's an unusual case > > > in that there are no rights of way (except, to guarantee access I > > > suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths are implicitly > > > open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a > > > permissive path' notice. > > > > > > Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to > > > forestry operations. > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Nick Whitelegg > > > Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11 > > > To: Talk GB > > > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common > > > > > > > > > I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in > > > the countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas > > > with public access, which are not rights of way but which > > > nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 'Private' or > > > 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the > > > landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public > > > use. > > > > > > I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain > > > 'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It > > > might have public or permissive use. It might be private. At the > > > moment we don't know'. > > > > > > I tend to use: > > > designation for rights of way; > > > foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive > > > paths; > > > foot=yes for urban paths; > > > access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' > > > sign. > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Adam Snape > > > Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20 > > > To: Talk GB > > > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common > > > > > > It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, > > > foot=yes as an error just because foot access is implied by > > > default. Whilst there might be the tiniest bit of redundancy I > > > can't see any particular reason to remove it and, indeed, there > > > might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to > > > an implied value. > > > > > > OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat > > > for the end user that a way might be closed. I only add it where > > > a route is explicitly stated to be permissive on the ground, is > > > actually known or likely to be shut from time to time, or is > > > clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and housing > > > estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and > > > about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways. > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > Adam > > > ___ > > > 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 > > ___ > 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] Paths on Wimbledon Common
That would be great, bearing in mind access rights differ (e.g. Scotland and England). A really interesting point regarding temporary land-use (forestry, farming etc.) restrictions - ideal if it was dynamic to ensure that it is always updated (otherwise users woiuld ignore). It would certainly help land managers and users. Imagine if this was in place for Covid restrictions. Nick On 11/07/2020 11:37, Dan S wrote: Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate consensus? It would be super helpful Dan Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg : .. to follow that up, a good example where I have used foot=permissive en-masse is the New Forest. It's an unusual case in that there are no rights of way (except, to guarantee access I suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths are implicitly open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a permissive path' notice. Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to forestry operations. Nick From: Nick Whitelegg Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11 To: Talk GB Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in the countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas with public access, which are not rights of way but which nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 'Private' or 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public use. I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain 'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It might have public or permissive use. It might be private. At the moment we don't know'. I tend to use: designation for rights of way; foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive paths; foot=yes for urban paths; access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' sign. Nick From: Adam Snape Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20 To: Talk GB Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as an error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might be the tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to remove it and, indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to an implied value. OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat for the end user that a way might be closed. I only add it where a route is explicitly stated to be permissive on the ground, is actually known or likely to be shut from time to time, or is clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and housing estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways. Kind regards, Adam ___ 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 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate consensus? It would be super helpful Dan Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg : > > > .. to follow that up, a good example where I have used foot=permissive > en-masse is the New Forest. It's an unusual case in that there are no rights > of way (except, to guarantee access I suspect, crossings over railways) but > all paths are implicitly open to the public. However there is no explicit > 'This is a permissive path' notice. > > Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to forestry > operations. > > Nick > > > > From: Nick Whitelegg > Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11 > To: Talk GB > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common > > > I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in the > countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas with public > access, which are not rights of way but which nonetheless are in common use > and do not have any 'Private' or 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this > case that the landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public > use. > > I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain > 'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It might have > public or permissive use. It might be private. At the moment we don't know'. > > I tend to use: > designation for rights of way; > foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive paths; > foot=yes for urban paths; > access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' sign. > > Nick > > > ________ > From: Adam Snape > Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20 > To: Talk GB > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common > > It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as an > error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might be > the tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to remove it > and, indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is always > preferable to an implied value. > > OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat for the end > user that a way might be closed. I only add it where a route is explicitly > stated to be permissive on the ground, is actually known or likely to be shut > from time to time, or is clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks > and housing estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and > about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways. > > Kind regards, > > Adam > ___ > 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] Paths on Wimbledon Common
.. to follow that up, a good example where I have used foot=permissive en-masse is the New Forest. It's an unusual case in that there are no rights of way (except, to guarantee access I suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths are implicitly open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a permissive path' notice. Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to forestry operations. Nick From: Nick Whitelegg Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11 To: Talk GB Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in the countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas with public access, which are not rights of way but which nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 'Private' or 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public use. I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain 'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It might have public or permissive use. It might be private. At the moment we don't know'. I tend to use: designation for rights of way; foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive paths; foot=yes for urban paths; access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' sign. Nick From: Adam Snape Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20 To: Talk GB Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as an error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might be the tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to remove it and, indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to an implied value. OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat for the end user that a way might be closed. I only add it where a route is explicitly stated to be permissive on the ground, is actually known or likely to be shut from time to time, or is clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and housing estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways. Kind regards, Adam ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in the countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas with public access, which are not rights of way but which nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 'Private' or 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public use. I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain 'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It might have public or permissive use. It might be private. At the moment we don't know'. I tend to use: designation for rights of way; foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive paths; foot=yes for urban paths; access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' sign. Nick From: Adam Snape Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20 To: Talk GB Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as an error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might be the tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to remove it and, indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to an implied value. OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat for the end user that a way might be closed. I only add it where a route is explicitly stated to be permissive on the ground, is actually known or likely to be shut from time to time, or is clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and housing estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways. Kind regards, Adam ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as an error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might be the tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to remove it and, indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to an implied value. OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat for the end user that a way might be closed. I only add it where a route is explicitly stated to be permissive on the ground, is actually known or likely to be shut from time to time, or is clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and housing estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways. Kind regards, Adam ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
Hi, I'm the changeset commenter, I added the foot=yes on the common based on it being a registered common with definite legal access. I also add foot=yes to signed public footpaths. I would only add foot=designated where there is a blue person sign or similar (not a green/wooden public footpath sign) and where doing so adds some value over just using the default. And I'm not sure I've ever actually used it. In general I'm wary of the legal aspect of the tag, as in most cases a mapper has no idea of the legal status. My approach (SW London urban areas) is based on a less legalistic interpretation: * foot=private if it looks private * "customers" if it is obviously for customers * "destination" if it is obviously just for those going somewhere in particular, such as a path to a school or church * "permissive" if it is likely to be private land but it is known or almost certainly used by others, paths on housing estates being an example * "yes" if I'm confident of the legal status, such as common land and public footpaths * nothing otherwise, and this includes sidewalks Stephen On Fri, 10 Jul 2020, 17:02 Adam Snape, wrote: > Hi, > > It's worth pointing out that if Wimbledon Common is (as I assume) > registered as common land then there would normally be a legal right of > access on foot under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, so > foot=yes would be correct. > > Kind regards, > > Adam > > > ___ > 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] Paths on Wimbledon Common
>I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning for >highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over >from a preset in Potlatch >1. > >https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87672607 > >I got a changeset comment querying the edit. Hi Andrew, My understanding is that highway=footway with no access tags has an implied foot=yes. This, however is entirely different from highway=footway + foot=yes which explicitly states that access is allowed. Without the explicit tag, whilst routing will be the same, it could just be that the mapper adding the path did not know whether access was allowed. In my view, if there is a rule check, it should be checking that there IS either a foot= tag or an access=tag and warning if there isn't. For me however, the biggest problem is ways tagged with highway=footway, access=no and foot=yes - this really should be warned about, as without reading the change history and notes it is not possible to determine whether the access=no was intended to indicate that other access than foot is disallowed (which is superfluous) or was added to say the path has been closed, forgetting that foot=yes will override it. The feedback comment mentioned 'designated' - I think foot=designated should ideally only be used in conjunction with the designation= tag, as otherwise you don't know what designation designates the access. There are also lots of ways tagged with values of 'designated' for transport modes where the mapper had an incorrect understanding of what it meant, so without the accompanying designation tag, these values should be taken with a pinch of salt. Regards, Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
Hi, It's worth pointing out that if Wimbledon Common is (as I assume) registered as common land then there would normally be a legal right of access on foot under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, so foot=yes would be correct. Kind regards, Adam ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
On Fri, 2020-07-10 at 11:54 +, Andrew Hain wrote: > I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning > for highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over from a preset > in Potlatch 1. > > > > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87672607 > > > > > > I got a changeset comment querying the edit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I note you have removed foot=yes from highway=footway. My > understanding is that the default for a footway is foot=designated, > but designated requires an explicit sign. the paths on Wimbledon > Common do not have an explicit sign, but are legally > accessible, hence foot=yes. Perhaps osmose is wrong.Any comments? > --Andrew > > > > Assuming that you can walk there and from other comments in this thread you can, then what harm was the tag doing? QA tools, like compiler warnings, do need to be used with care. These are just warnings, not errors, which say you may want check this. They are not saying this must be fixed. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
Jul 10, 2020, 14:49 by ajt1...@gmail.com: > On 10/07/2020 12:54, Andrew Hain wrote: > >> I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning for >> highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over from a preset in Potlatch >> 1. >> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87672607 >> > If Osmose is flagging "highway=footway;foot=yes" as a warning I'd suggest > that that is a problem that needs logging with Osmose. > It may be the best to make it a bit smarter - it is a completely valid suggestion in for example Poland. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
On 10/07/2020 13:35, David Woolley wrote: > On 10/07/2020 13:11, Colin Smale wrote: >> What does "legally accessible" mean? Are they Public Footpaths? Do we >> tag all Public Footpaths with an explicit "foot=yes" or is >> "designation=public_footpath" enough? >> > > I don't know the situation in Wimbledon Common, but most footpaths in > public park are more correctly described as access=permissive. foot=permissive might be better, as that doesn't imply anything at all for other transport modes. > > My understanding is that designated only has meaning if combined with an > access type tag with a value of designated. > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
(apologies for the double reply) I just remembered I wrote a diary entry last year about this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/391053 . That has some useful links in such as a pointer to the start of "designation" tagging, in 2009: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-March/035412.html . Best Regards (again), Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
On 10/07/2020 12:54, Andrew Hain wrote: I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning for highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over from a preset in Potlatch 1. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87672607 If Osmose is flagging "highway=footway;foot=yes" as a warning I'd suggest that that is a problem that needs logging with Osmose. Speaking for myself, I've tagged "highway=footway" as "foot=yes" (where there is a legal right of way, such as a public footpath in England and Wales, or across access land), as "foot=permissive" where there isn't a legal right of way but general access is permitted (perhaps in parks/gardens that are occasionally closed but aren't restricted to "customers" and where there is no legal right of access) and as "foot=designated" where there's actual signage that suggests that foot traffic should go _this_ way rather than some other way which would otherwise be legal. I'd also use "designation=public_footpath" if appropriate (and also set "foot=yes" on those to make it clear to everyone who might not understand a "designation" tag). Prior to that tag being adopted, there was some use of "foot=designated" to indicate "this is a public footpath" but about 10 years ago or so (I think) people started using "designation=public_footpath" instead. In summary - I'd agree with the changeset commenter that "foot=yes" was useful on those paths as it made it explicit that there was legal access for foot traffic despite there being no public footpath there. Best Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
On 10/07/2020 13:11, Colin Smale wrote: What does "legally accessible" mean? Are they Public Footpaths? Do we tag all Public Footpaths with an explicit "foot=yes" or is "designation=public_footpath" enough? I don't know the situation in Wimbledon Common, but most footpaths in public park are more correctly described as access=permissive. My understanding is that designated only has meaning if combined with an access type tag with a value of designated. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
The changeset comment seems backwards to me, foot=designated is more specific than foot=yes (which would be the default for any mapped footpath). On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 1:12 PM Colin Smale wrote: > What does "legally accessible" mean? Are they Public Footpaths? Do we tag > all Public Footpaths with an explicit "foot=yes" or is > "designation=public_footpath" enough? > > > > On 2020-07-10 13:54, Andrew Hain wrote: > > I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning for > highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over from a preset in > Potlatch 1. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87672607 > > I got a changeset comment querying the edit. > > > >- I note you have removed foot=yes from highway=footway. My >understanding is that the default for a footway is foot=designated, but >designated requires an explicit sign. the paths on Wimbledon Common do not >have an explicit sign, but are legally accessible, hence foot=yes. Perhaps >osmose is wrong. >- Any comments? >- -- >- Andrew > > > ___ > 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 > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
What does "legally accessible" mean? Are they Public Footpaths? Do we tag all Public Footpaths with an explicit "foot=yes" or is "designation=public_footpath" enough? On 2020-07-10 13:54, Andrew Hain wrote: > I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning for > highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over from a preset in Potlatch > 1. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87672607 > > I got a changeset comment querying the edit. > > * I note you have removed foot=yes from highway=footway. My understanding is > that the default for a footway is foot=designated, but designated requires an > explicit sign. the paths on Wimbledon Common do not have an explicit sign, > but are legally accessible, hence foot=yes. Perhaps osmose is wrong. > * Any comments? > * -- > * Andrew > > ___ > 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] Paths on Wimbledon Common
I have always believed that highway=footway in the UK implies foot=yes (and not foot=designated), though I actually don't know if UK tagging practice is successfully documented. IMHO the use of "designated" is quite specific and probably shouldn't be assumed as an invisible default. Best Dan Op vr 10 jul. 2020 om 12:55 schreef Andrew Hain : > I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning for > highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over from a preset in > Potlatch 1. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87672607 > > I got a changeset comment querying the edit. > > > > > > >- I note you have removed foot=yes from highway=footway. My >understanding is that the default for a footway is foot=designated, but >designated requires an explicit sign. the paths on Wimbledon Common do not >have an explicit sign, but are legally accessible, hence foot=yes. Perhaps >osmose is wrong. >- Any comments? >- -- >- Andrew > > > ___ > 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
