Nick Whitelegg wrote: > As it happens, the problem seems to have gone away. Since I originally > surveyed the track, the designation tag has been removed by an experienced > contributor and replaced with foot=permissive. So since "permissive" > obviously doesn't apply in this case, I just removed it.
It plainly is a path, a footpath and people, and possibly trespassers' who are permitted have worn it. In this instance you were not permitted by the land owner to use it. OTOH the public may well have acquired a right to use the route by prescription and the owner is trying to rescind this. I personally will only tag paths as permissive if the land owner has lodged a decalration with the LA, to do anything else potentially reduces any public right that may have accrued. > > Nonetheless, this is an important problem which I think we need to find a > definitive answer to: what do you do when you later discover, via a > copyrighted source, that a path you originally surveyed is not, in fact, > the correct course. It is still a path, you have a trace for it, it's just not a PROW. AJH _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
