On 02/10/16 13:06, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Indeed - unless they have foot=yes, foot=permissive, access=permissive (etc) or designation=public_footpath, we are in no way telling them that they are public access.
Whether or not there is a formal statement of this anywhere an unspecified access is normally understood to be access=yes for the normal users of an element type in the country.
So I would say that highway=path was equivalent to highway=path; foot=yes; bicycle=yes; horse=yes; motor_vehicle=no (spellings may be wrong). highway=footway would imply yes to just foot. Renderers and routers will, I think follow this policy.
It is completely unreasonable for landowners to have a go at us just for showing a path on the map. Just because it's on the map, it doesn't implicitly mean it's public.
I would say if it is mapped as footway or path and doesn't have an explicit access, it does implicitly allow foot use by the general public. I think the landowner could reasonably expect an explicit access tag with restricted rights. That is best done by giving access= for the most permissive and cancelling other rights using detailed categories, even though there is an element of mapping for the renderer in that.
This needs resolving fairly quickly, otherwise the landowner will take matters into their own hands, register to edit, and fix the problem in a way that suits them, which will probably not involve the subtleties of coding, but simply a deletion of all the paths he thinks the public should not use.
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
