>The main problem with the wiki page is that it didn't distinguish between an >official public footpath and a way which is there on the ground, but has no >known >designation or right of way status. (Or else the page just didn't cover that >case, even though it is by far the most common.)
Again this varies from mapper to mapper and case to case, but my usual approach to the above is to tag with foot=permissive if that is explicitly or implicitly (evidence of frequent usage, stiles and gates, signs that imply walkers are OK such as "No cycling" or "Dogs must be kept on leads") indicated. Obviously a path on the ground which has been made due to someone vandalising a fence would not be tagged as such! Nick -
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
