On 15/12/2025 20:37, Adam Snape wrote:
To be fair to Frederik, I think what he's stating probably makes a lot of sense in most of the world and he's perhaps unaware of the peculiar situation here where both legally and culturally highways are defined by a right of access rather than any definite physical attribute. An English walker looking at a map showing a rural footpath has no expectation of any surfacing or construction, merely the right to pass unhindered along the shown route. To me it is entirely right that these millions of miles of paths are mapped.
I think one of the key points for mappers of paths in the UK is that, in open countryside, many of them have no visible indication other than signs and/or waymarks. But the signs and waymarks are themselves an on-the-ground truth.
That said, I think it is possible to be too puritanical in this regard. The paths need to be usable. Would we map a highway through a wall, a building, or a barbed wire fence where a Right of Way was obstructed? We shouldn't just abide by the wishes of every landowner who wishes they didn't have a path through their land, but in cases where alternative routes are in place for safety or errosion purposes, certainly from an organistation like the NT, I'd echo Michael's suggestion of mapping the route with foot=discouraged.
I'd be inclined to agree with that. Mark _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
