Nick Whitelegg wrote: > Hello Godfrey, > > Sorry I should have made another point: > > "If it's a path which you know is a right of way via an Ordnance Survey > map, but cannot verify that on the ground, again you must use > foot=permissive even if that's not true. This is because you can't verify > the right of way status from a non copyright source." > > To even tag such a path as foot=permissive you need some sort of evidence > that it's being used by walkers (e.g. seeing other walkers on the path, > "Keep to path" signs, local custom e.g. all paths in the New Forest have > permissive public access). If you see a path where the *only* evidence > that you can use it is an OS map, then you probably can't even use > foot=permissive. In such cases you'll just have to tag as highway=path as > the only thing you can verify from a non copyright source is the physical > nature of the way. Perhaps foot=unknown or access=unknown too, or > note=Might be private. > > Nick > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > Surely if you have walked it and not been thrown of my man with gun or mad dog, then you can assume that it is indeed foot=permissive ?
Bogus _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
