Hi, On 12.09.19 06:27, Andrew Harvey wrote: > It's always better to have this mapped based on confirmations on the > ground, and it appears in this case that the local mapper Zhent, has > been mapping based on local knowledge.
I have a feeling that Zhent's "foot=yes" might not mean "there is a sign here allowing access" but more "I walked here and wasn't arrested" ;) Question is, can we assume that any path leading into Conservation Lands that does *not* have a sign forbidding something, allows it? Probably not - NPWS can hardly be expected to continuously patrol the area for new "things that look like paths". Mind you, some of the paths that were added here have "sac_scale" and "trail_visibility" tags that do not sound like these are obvious trails actually prepared by NPWS for walkers. This might also tie in with the concept of "default rules" - for example, if "everyone knows that horse riding is only permitted on explicitly signed trails" in Conservation Lands then do we apply a blanket horse=no to everything else, or not... Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
