Perhaps there should be a access/foot=open_access tag?
Paths across open access areas aren't really "permissive". First, you
usually have some rights to wander off the path/make your own. Second,
there is (always?) some sort of regulatory/public right involved, it
isn't just dependent on the largesse of a landowner.
In my area of Yorkshire, there are a number of open access areas where
unofficial paths have evolved over recent years. I have mapped these as
foot=yes, but that misses the extra right-to-roam dimension.
Mike
On 2020-07-11 12:57, Philip Barnes wrote:
On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 11:51 +0100, Nick wrote:
That would be great, bearing in mind access rights differ (e.g.
Scotland
and England).
Not just England, Wales too.
Phil (trigpoint)
A really interesting point regarding temporary land-use (forestry,
farming etc.) restrictions - ideal if it was dynamic to ensure that
it
is always updated (otherwise users woiuld ignore). It would
certainly
help land managers and users. Imagine if this was in place for Covid
restrictions.
Nick
On 11/07/2020 11:37, Dan S wrote:
Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary
guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate
consensus? It would be super helpful
Dan
Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg
<nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>:
.. to follow that up, a good example where I have used
foot=permissive en-masse is the New Forest. It's an unusual case
in that there are no rights of way (except, to guarantee access I
suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths are implicitly
open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a
permissive path' notice.
Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to
forestry operations.
Nick
________________________________
From: Nick Whitelegg <nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>
Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11
To: Talk GB <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in
the countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas
with public access, which are not rights of way but which
nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 'Private' or
'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the
landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public
use.
I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain
'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It
might have public or permissive use. It might be private. At the
moment we don't know'.
I tend to use:
designation for rights of way;
foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive
paths;
foot=yes for urban paths;
access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out'
sign.
Nick
________________________________
From: Adam Snape <adam.c.sn...@gmail.com>
Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20
To: Talk GB <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway,
foot=yes as an error just because foot access is implied by
default. Whilst there might be the tiniest bit of redundancy I
can't see any particular reason to remove it and, indeed, there
might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to
an implied value.
OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat
for the end user that a way might be closed. I only add it where
a route is explicitly stated to be permissive on the ground, is
actually known or likely to be shut from time to time, or is
clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and housing
estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and
about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways.
Kind regards,
Adam
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
