>Are there any use-cases for keeping the legal designations of >rights-of-way (aware that this is very UK-specific..)
Since permissive tracks are not legal rights of way, and permission can be withdrawn at any time, I think we should distinguish between them. >e.g. perhaps someone wants to use our maps to check that all the >rights of way in their area are properly accessible. Or someone using >an OSM map is challenged by a landowner and 'the map says I'm >permitted to herd sheep along this path' >we seem to have lost 'public footpath' information already by using >the same 'footway' tag for anywhere that you appear to be able to walk >nevermind if there's a footpath sign at the end. proposals like this >might make 'real bridleways' disappear too, into a mix of places that >at first glance seem passable by horse-riders But that's what foot and horse are for. highway=path could easily be used to distinguish public and permissive footpaths and bridleways. e.g. highway=path, foot=yes - public footpath highway=path, foot=permissive - permissive footpath highway=path, foot=yes, horse=yes - public bridleway highway=path, foot=yes, horse=permissive - public footpath with permissive horse rights highway=path, foot=permissive, horse=permissive - permissive bridleway highway=path, foot=no, horse=permissive - horse only path (such things exist) then if highway=path is replaced by highway=track in all the above cases, we can also distinguish physical surface. I think highway=path|track|service, surface=[whatever], and foot|horse|bicycle|motorcar = yes|no|permissive|private cover all cases I can think of. Nick _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
