On 16/12/2025 09:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 15/12/2025 20:37, Adam Snape wrote:
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.
I'm sure I saw a suggestion, on a previous occasion when something like
this cropped up in this list, that where a RoW was impassible the
designation=public_footpath
foot=designated
prow_ref=*
tags should be attached to a way which is *not* tagged highway=*. This
made sense to me at the time as reflecting accurately both the legal and
de-facto state.
John
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
