Richard Thanks for this ... very helpful - a few comments - 1. Path: I would prefer to use highway=footway for a path that has (almost always illegally) not been reinstated across a ploughed field IF I know it to be a public right of way, e.g. from the black and yellow waymarks that people like me put onto public footpaths! (After all, after intervention this path may well get restored to its legal condition!) Similarly for other situations where the path is not good or clear but IS waymarked as a public footpath. I would tend to minimise usage of highway=path - and use it mostly for paths that are not well-defined and not known to be a right of way - typically in rural or upland areas. I would not add foot=yes - as, if I know this to be true, I would then be using highway=footway. Most rural public footpaths are not easily seen on the ground - but most are waymarked at intervals; I want to give these highway=footway status to distinguish them from informal paths - which are also numerous in undeveloped and unfarmed rural areas. 2. Footway: I broadly agree. I would also use this for any way that is clearly unsuitable for higher levels of user (cyclists, horses, etc.) and known (e.g. from signage or otherwise) to be a public footpath - urban or rural. I would add foot=yes. 3. Bridleway: I only use this for ways that I know to be a public bridleway (and thus have rights for pedestrians, horse riders and - almost always - cyclists). This is because the word 'bridleway' has legal meaning (in England and Wales) - unlike 'footway'. If I do not know (from blue and yellow signage or otherwise) that it is a public bridleway I would tend to use only highway=track and add a tracktype= tag to indicate the surface for the benefit of cyclists etc. (I don't wish to imply a legal right by using the tag 'bridleway' unless I know this to be true). I would add foot=yes, bicycle=yes (unless known to be untrue) and horse=yes. 4. Cycleway: In the countryside I tend to use this for paths that are clearly physically suitable for, and are signed for, cyclists and seem on the ground to have been primarily created as a cycle route but are not known to be public bridleways (where I would give precedence to highway=bridleway as a more well-defined category). I would also use it in urban areas for appropriately blue signed cycle paths and also for dedicated cycle tracks more or less alongside roads etc. (As said before I would not regard ncn/rcn etc. as a reason for highway=cycleway - I would use a relation for this). I would add foot=yes (unless known to be untrue) and bicycle=yes. 5. Track: Broadly agree - unless the track is known (e.g. from signage) to be a public bridleway - in which case I would prefer to use the more well defined highway=bridleway. I also usually try to add a tracktype= tag (grade1 to grade5) as per the wiki to give a bit more information about the surface (and thus suitability for various types of user) - where I have recorded or remember this from the survey. I would not add foot/horse/bicycle=yes etc. unless known to be true. 6. Byway: I also use the tag highway=byway for tracks that are known, e.g. from plum or red signage or from finger posts (or from personal knowledge in my area) to be a 'Restricted Byway' (RB, the term that has replaced 'Road Used as Public Path' or RUPP - no longer exist) or a 'Byway Open to all Traffic' (BOAT) - again adding tracktype= if possible. I would add foot=yes, horse=yes, bicycle=yes. For a RB I might add motorcar=no, motorcycle=no if it looked as if it could be driven but was signed as an RB (i.e. motorised traffic banned). For a BOAT I would stay silent on motorcar/motorcycle= unless I had specific local knowledge as the use of a BOAT by motorised traffic is defined on a case by case basis. In summary: Despite the length of my response, I do not think we are very far apart. Where there is no signage (and no other non-copyright way to determine legal status) I would be in pretty close agreement with you. Where there is additional evidence regarding legal status I would generally try to use this - in particular (a) to add the information that a path is in fact a public footpath (highway=footway, foot=yes) rather than just a 'path' (highway=path), (b) to avoid highway=bridleway unless I had evidence that it was a public bridleway (because 'bridleway' - unlike 'footway' - carries legal implications), (c) to use 'track' in a parallel way to 'path' - i.e. to distinguish a track that is known to be a public right of way of some kind (by using highway=bridleway or highway=byway), (d) to add the use of highway=byway for known RBs and BOATs. I am obviously a bit biased by being one of the people who spend time putting up those multi-coloured waymarks on public rights of way of various kinds! I have found this exchange very useful and will be continuing to strive to get the balance right between 'basic physical status' and 'rights' information drawn from signage on the ground (or local knowledge)! Happy mapping! Mike Harris
_____ From: Richard Mann [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 24 March 2009 13:18 To: osm Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway Mike asked for examples of "basic physical status". 1) Path - poorly-defined path (either because of low usage, or because there's no advantage in taking any particular line, or because someone's ploughed it) 2) Footway - well-defined, but not suitable for horses, due to accesses (stiles / kissing gates), and vulnerability of surface to damage from heavy animals. Most UK country footpaths fall into this category. Category also covers urban made-up ways from which cycles are specifically banned. Some are designated public footpaths. 3) Bridleway - well-defined, and usage by horses accepted, with gates for access. Surface unlikely to be made-up, and likely to be unusable by cyclists, especially in woods, and especially after rain. Routing a bike on such a way wouldn't be clever. Most UK country bridleways fall into this category, but not urban ones. 4) Cycleway - surface made up and fairly smooth. Probably no objection to horses using it occasionally, though situation likely to be unclear unless it's legally a Bridleway, or there's some horse-unfriendly gates. Possibly occasional access for farm vehicles / cars. Legal designation could be just about anything - so long as the landowner doesn't mind. Might be a case for narrow cycleways to be coded as cycle&footway, to show you will probably have to cycle differently, and to avoid claiming undue ownership/priority for cyclists. 5) Track - surface made up though may be a bit rough, and may have grass growing down the middle. Probably no formal access restrictions, though hard work for cyclists, and could well damage a normal car. Landowner may limit access. Also covers forest tracks, though surface likely to be less well made up, and prone to being impassable for some vehicles in wet conditions. Legal designation could be anything or nothing. The general point is that legal designation and physical status don't always align. Richard (not the one responsible for Potlatch)
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
