On 02/10/16 15:06, Andy Townsend wrote:
No - in England and Wales an unspecified access tag surely means just "don't
know" especially as if (as seems to be the case for one of the ways here) it's
mapped from aerial imagery.
So HGV's may be permitted on the typical footway, without an access tag?
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#United_Kingdom>
shows an implied yes, for path, but with a footnote that the UK
guidelines are that paths should always have explicit access. footway
is given as unequivocally implying yes.
In most/all other countries, path defaults to an unqualified yes for
foot, horse and cycles.
Generally default accesses are implied to avoid the normal case being
cluttered with lots of attributes. Of course, as more private paths get
mapped, it may be that private is the real normal case!
The UK rules would seem to suggest that path without access is a mapping
error.
I suspect that people following these private paths are doing so from
rendered maps, and rendered maps generally look only at access= to
determine whether to mark a way as private. As such the ramblers in
question would probably behave in the same way for highway=path; foot=no
as they would for just highway=path on its own. To get some hope of end
users obeying the access rules, you would need highway=path; access=private.
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
