On 02/09/2019 16:57, Mark Goodge wrote:
I'm a little puzzled by one of the lines on the permissions grid on
that page. There's a line for "Legal RoW but access discouraged", with
a suggested tagging of "discouraged/private" for pedestrians (and
similar tags for other users).
Quite apart from the fact that "private" is simply wrong for any
public right of way, the use of "discouraged" for pedestrian users
seems to me to also conflict with the wiki, which suggests that this
is a functional tag (the wiki example is HGV traffic on narrow roads).
I suspect that the issues that they're trying to deal with here are:
* Rights of way such as byways open to all traffic that have traffic
regulation orders on them because they are currently not navigable.
I've certainly seen example where a PRoW was closed to foot, horse
and vehicle traffic even though it likely wasn't the walkers doing
the damage.
* Paths in moorland (where here it _is_ the walkers doing the damage),
perhaps in CROW act areas, that need to be closed temporarily to
allow heather etc. to regrow.
But public rights of way come in all shapes and sizes, from broad,
well-maintained paths to barely visible routes across difficult
terrain. If we want to tag their relative ease of use, then surely a
more appropriate tag than "discouraged" should be used. If a right of
way on foot exists, then it is, ultimately, up to the user whether
they use it or not.
Indeed - but from reading what the NT have said I don't think they're
opposed to tagging of surface, trail_visibility etc. to enable people to
make their own mind up.
(as an aside https://map.atownsend.org.uk/ does look at various subtags
on non-PRoWs and won't show some paths on that basis)
The reason why I'm uneasy with this here, is that it relates to
similar concerns already expressed by Frederik Ramm. There's quite a
lot of NT property which is crossed by public rights of way, but that
the NT would prefer people not to use as they provide a route onto the
property that bypasses the "official" entrance. I can understand why
they'd want to do that, but I don't think it's appropriate to reflect
that in how the paths are mapped in OSM.
Indeed, but I think we'd need an example where that was happening? I've
often found myself inside an NT property "by accident" via a PRoW that
doesn't go through a main entrance, but can't remember ever remember
being prevented from using it or even "persuaded not to". The exception
is where big for-pay events are held and PRoWs are temporarily closed -
a non-NT example of that I can think of is Chatsworth Country Fair.
Best Regards,
Andy
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
