Re: [OSM-talk] path or byway ?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

> Perhaps it's also a misunderstanding from my part that the wiki "Map
> Features" is the international wiki page but, in fact, is the UK map
> features page.

No, that is a misunderstanding also. The Map Features page is where 
*all* widely used tags get documented (plus a few others). If you have a 
tag that is widely used in France you're welcome to put that on Map 
Features even if people in the UK are unlikely to use it and vice versa.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] path or byway ?

[Pieren]

Thanks for all replies.
After a parallel discussion in the french ML, I would say that we will
probably not use it as it sounds too much UK specific.
Perhaps it's also a misunderstanding from my part that the wiki "Map
Features" is the international wiki page but, in fact, is the UK map
features page.

Pieren

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Bruce Cowan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 01:48 +0100, 80n wrote:
More technically, it's an English and Welsh thing. AFAIK, Scotland
doesn't have these (we may do, but our access laws are very liberal).

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] path or byway ?

[matthew-osm]

Hi,

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 06:13:39PM +0100, David Earl wrote:
> They are universally rural. They are tracks, yes, but formally public 
> whereas a track will typically be associated with a farm ore similar. 

Mostly rural, but not all. There are two in Loughborough that I
am aware of - one "Cross Hill Lane":

http://informationfreeway.org/?lat=52.756383670302455&lon=-1.2154373874651676&zoom=17&layers=B000F000F

The other unnamed, but just labelled as "byway open to all
traffic" - on the edge of town, and rather useless as after a
while it turns into a private road, no turning room.

http://informationfreeway.org/?lat=52.75253955766346&lon=-1.2367663089318803&zoom=17&layers=B000F000F

Both are surfaced, and once would have been in the country, of
course (like most old roads!). There are many in Suffolk, some
tracks, others surfaced, such as

http://informationfreeway.org/?lat=52.23996492630855&lon=1.0154108416754053&zoom=17&layers=B000F000F

where Swilltub Lane (going North) is a restricted byway, but you
can only walk down it as it's all overgrown (in the last 30-40
years or so). Hundred Lane (going East from Swilltub Lane) is a
BOAT but indestinguishable from any unclassified road (which it
is to the West) apart from a sign saying byway.

Byways should be signed in theory, just like a footpath, but
might not be of course. Anything labelled "RUPP"[1] is now a
byway, since about 2006 (sadly, in my opinion - it's nice to have
some strange historic stuff around sometimes). There's an
(ex-)RUPP in grey here:

http://informationfreeway.org/?lat=52.23587828332072&lon=0.988159603986547&zoom=17&layers=B000F000F

I usually label with something like "uk:row=B.O.A.T.", or
similar, at least before highway=byway (oxymoron=true? ;-) )
started to be used.

Cheers,

-- 
Matthew

[1] Road used as a public path

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] path or byway ?

[Bruce Cowan]

On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 01:48 +0100, 80n wrote:


> In the case of the OSM definition of highway=byway, it corresponds
> exactly to the UK definition of a byway (or more precisely Byway Open
> to All Traffic).

More technically, it's an English and Welsh thing. AFAIK, Scotland
doesn't have these (we may do, but our access laws are very liberal).

-- 
Bruce Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] path or byway ?

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>Sent: 21 July 2008 10:29 AM
>To: Andy Street
>Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] path or byway ?
>
>>What exactly are we trying to achieve with highway=byway? I can think of
>>two possible uses but both seem to have unresolved issues.
>
>>The first is simply to record that a particular way exists and has
>>certain access rights. In this instance I don't see highway=byway being
>>any different to highway=track, foot=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes,
>>motorcycle=yes, motorcar=yes and the latter would probably make more
>>sense to non-uk people.
>
>>The second is to record the exact legal classification of the way as a
>>byway rather than another entity with similar access permissions e.g. a
>>"Green Lane" (marked with green dots on OS maps with the key: "Other
>>routes with public access"). In this case the current practise of
>>tagging motorcar=no to indicate a restricted byway is insufficient as
>>this afternoon I walked along a BOAT that had also had a traffic order
>>preventing use by motorcars.
>
>>I'm personally starting to favour tagging byways as highway=track with
>>the appropriate access permissions in the same way that the map features
>>page now defines highway=footpath as highway=path, foot=yes. The only
>>issue I can see is that we would need to add a horsedrawn access tag to
>>differentiate between bridleways and restricted byways.
>
>I have to say I agree 100% with this, though I think we need to reach a
>consensus before changing the way we tag.
>
>Nick
>


We've debated this many many times. I fu*kd up with the original map
features list by not describing the physical and administrative aspects of a
feature separately. These questions probably would not keep cropping up if I
had.

Anyway, my take is that we should think more of the generic tagging as
representing the physical, that's what people can see on the ground and
means its not necessary to think or know about the administrative aspects.
This is what we do mostly anyway, its just that in the UK we conveniently
tidy both up in a single tag when we do something like highway=motorway.

If the byway is a track I feel it should be highway=track and then with the
extra byway=true. In that way the physical and administrative are separate
and easily understood.

Whether we would ever want to split motorways into highway=highway and
motorway=true of not I really don't know. In reality it just adds work
that's not needed when we all understand what highway=motorway means.

Cheers

Andy


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] path or byway ?

[Nick Whitelegg]

>What exactly are we trying to achieve with highway=byway? I can think of
>two possible uses but both seem to have unresolved issues.

>The first is simply to record that a particular way exists and has
>certain access rights. In this instance I don't see highway=byway being
>any different to highway=track, foot=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes,
>motorcycle=yes, motorcar=yes and the latter would probably make more
>sense to non-uk people.

>The second is to record the exact legal classification of the way as a
>byway rather than another entity with similar access permissions e.g. a
>"Green Lane" (marked with green dots on OS maps with the key: "Other
>routes with public access"). In this case the current practise of
>tagging motorcar=no to indicate a restricted byway is insufficient as
>this afternoon I walked along a BOAT that had also had a traffic order
>preventing use by motorcars.

>I'm personally starting to favour tagging byways as highway=track with
>the appropriate access permissions in the same way that the map features
>page now defines highway=footpath as highway=path, foot=yes. The only
>issue I can see is that we would need to add a horsedrawn access tag to
>differentiate between bridleways and restricted byways.

I have to say I agree 100% with this, though I think we need to reach a 
consensus before changing the way we tag.

Nick

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] path or byway ?

[elvin ibbotson]

From: Pieren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 July 2008 22:14:32 BDT
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [OSM-talk] path or byway ?
Dear talk,

Could some native english speaker explain the difference between  
"highway=path" and "highway=byway" recently introduced in map  
features ?


The description is not obvious. Is it unpaved / paved ? Where is  
the limit between path-byway and byway-unclassified ?


regards
Pieren



As I understand it, a byway (which may be yet another of the UK- 
oriented map features) is normally an old road or lane which probably  
was once well used by foot traffic, horses, carts, coaches, whatever,  
but was not adopted as part of the modern road network. They are  
often known in Britain as green roads because they have not been  
maintained and rarely have much or any surface left, being generally  
dirt, stones, grass, weeds and mud. They are distinguished from paths  
and bridleways (another British thing?) by still being rights of way  
for all/any traffic and so tend to be popular with the off-road  
community with their 4x4s, quad bikes and scramblers. These things  
tend to make the byways rutted and muddier and upset the walkers and  
mountain bikers (the latter also upsetting the walkers) so that local  
authorities get pressured into placing local restrictions on some  
byways. Enough detail? (I could drone on for hours).


elvin


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] path or byway ?

[Andy Street]

On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 16:35 +0100, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> >What is the limit between "highway=byway" and "highway=track" ?
> 
> Byway is an official byway (a certain class of right of way in the UK), 
> or, if motorcar=no added, a restricted byway.
> A "highway=track" is any other type of track - you can use the 
> foot/horse/bicycle tags to describe precisely what sort of traffic is 
> allowed on it.

What exactly are we trying to achieve with highway=byway? I can think of
two possible uses but both seem to have unresolved issues.

The first is simply to record that a particular way exists and has
certain access rights. In this instance I don't see highway=byway being
any different to highway=track, foot=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes,
motorcycle=yes, motorcar=yes and the latter would probably make more
sense to non-uk people.

The second is to record the exact legal classification of the way as a
byway rather than another entity with similar access permissions e.g. a
"Green Lane" (marked with green dots on OS maps with the key: "Other
routes with public access"). In this case the current practise of
tagging motorcar=no to indicate a restricted byway is insufficient as
this afternoon I walked along a BOAT that had also had a traffic order
preventing use by motorcars.

I'm personally starting to favour tagging byways as highway=track with
the appropriate access permissions in the same way that the map features
page now defines highway=footpath as highway=path, foot=yes. The only
issue I can see is that we would need to add a horsedrawn access tag to
differentiate between bridleways and restricted byways.

Regards,

Andy


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] path or byway ?

[David Earl]

There's the informal word byway as in the English phrase "highways and 
byways" which you would indeed say is a minor road as per wikipedia, but 
there are also formal "byways". In many parts of England these are 
actually signposted with a finger post which simply says "Byway" or 
"Public byway". e.g. 
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/data/original/lle000.192947n52.164140a002m045o_20051224_125455.jpg

I know this signing is common in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk, so it is 
highly appropriate to tag it as such when you have the evidence on the 
ground to support it.

They are universally rural. They are tracks, yes, but formally public 
whereas a track will typically be associated with a farm ore similar. 
Most would once have allowed motor vehicles, but in many cases these 
have now been restricted (I found one the other day which was only 
restricted in winter: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.16718&lon=-0.08336&zoom=16&layers=B00FTF 
)

As someone else said, it it isn't relevant in your country, don't use 
the tag.

David

On 19/07/2008 11:59, Pieren wrote:
> I forgot the discussion in December (which was more about voting or not 
> voting ;-).
> It's clear when I read the following description from Nick W. [1]:
> - "Byway (highway=byway) is an unsurfaced track"
> 
> oops. "highway=unsurfaced" has been removed from Map Features. It has 
> been replaced by "highway=track" and/or "surface=".
> What is the limit between "highway=byway" and "highway=track" ?
> 
> Yes if I read [1] but no if I read the wikipedia definition:
> - "Byway (road), a minor secondary or tertiary road in the UK" [2]
> 
> But it seems that germans will to not use it ([3] and [4]) (I'm also 
> waiting the translation of byway in german to see their interpretation).
> 
> The descriptions in Map Features are used by many countries (directly or 
> for translations). New entries should be carefully documented.
> 
> Pieren
> 
> [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2007-December/021047.html
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byway
> [3] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2007-December/021050.html
> [4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/De:Germany_roads_tagging
> 
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 2:13 AM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > wrote:
> 
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2007-December/021047.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] path or byway ?

[Nick Whitelegg]

>What is the limit between "highway=byway" and "highway=track" ?

Byway is an official byway (a certain class of right of way in the UK), 
or, if motorcar=no added, a restricted byway.
A "highway=track" is any other type of track - you can use the 
foot/horse/bicycle tags to describe precisely what sort of traffic is 
allowed on it.

See

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/UK_Countryside_mapping

This is UK based but the principles could potentially apply anywhere.
Arguably, a highway=byway could be used internationally for any track in 
the countryside which motor vehicles are permitted on. 

Nick

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] path or byway ?

[Richard Bullock]

>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:54:51 -0500
> From: Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] path or byway ?
> To: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Pieren wrote:
>> Dear talk,
>>
>> Could some native english speaker explain the difference between
>> "highway=path" and "highway=byway" recently introduced in map features ?
>
> For one, byway was never proposed or described or otherwise documented,
> but instead just plopped into map features.  So I guess no one really
> knows except Richard B, who put it there.
>
> -Alex Mauer "hawke"

I only added it because it was already;

1. In use: see 
http://etricceline.de/osm/Great_britain/En/tagstats_highway=byway.htm

2. Rendered on both Mapnik and [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Also, it was already documented on the wiki here;
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/UK_public_rights_of_way

If it's already in reasonably widespread use - and will render, then we 
should be adding these to Map Features - people are voting by using the 
tags.

Richard



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] path or byway ?

[Pieren]

I forgot the discussion in December (which was more about voting or not
voting ;-).
It's clear when I read the following description from Nick W. [1]:
- "Byway (highway=byway) is an unsurfaced track"

oops. "highway=unsurfaced" has been removed from Map Features. It has been
replaced by "highway=track" and/or "surface=".
What is the limit between "highway=byway" and "highway=track" ?

Yes if I read [1] but no if I read the wikipedia definition:
- "Byway (road), a minor secondary or tertiary road in the UK" [2]

But it seems that germans will to not use it ([3] and [4]) (I'm also waiting
the translation of byway in german to see their interpretation).

The descriptions in Map Features are used by many countries (directly or for
translations). New entries should be carefully documented.

Pieren

[1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2007-December/021047.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byway
[3] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2007-December/021050.html
[4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/De:Germany_roads_tagging

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 2:13 AM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2007-December/021047.html
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] path or byway ?

[80n]

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 1:40 AM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Frederik Ramm wrote:
> >> For one, byway was never proposed or described or otherwise documented,
> >> but instead just plopped into map features.
> >
> > Just like them darn motorways... nobody ever put them to vote, it's
> > a shame ;-)
>
> Except that motorways were there on the very first rev (ok, second) of
> Map Features.  And they're documented.  And conceptually they're not
> UK-specific.
>
> My gripe is that it was put in there with neither discussion nor
> description; I never mentioned anything about voting.
>
> > There are probably a few more millions who know what a byway is.
> > In contrast to the generic term "path", a byway is something very
> > specific in the UK because it has a legal meaning.
>

> You are aware that the OSM definitions of things and the UK legal
> definitions of things are not always the same, right?


In the case of the OSM definition of highway=byway, it corresponds exactly
to the UK definition of a byway (or more precisely Byway Open to All
Traffic).

If it doesn't float your boat (pun intended) then don't use it.

80n



>
>
> -Alex Mauer "hawke"
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] path or byway ?

[Alex Mauer]

Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> For one, byway was never proposed or described or otherwise documented,
>> but instead just plopped into map features.
>
> Just like them darn motorways... nobody ever put them to vote, it's
> a shame ;-)

Except that motorways were there on the very first rev (ok, second) of 
Map Features.  And they're documented.  And conceptually they're not 
UK-specific.

My gripe is that it was put in there with neither discussion nor 
description; I never mentioned anything about voting.

> There are probably a few more millions who know what a byway is.
> In contrast to the generic term "path", a byway is something very
> specific in the UK because it has a legal meaning.

You are aware that the OSM definitions of things and the UK legal 
definitions of things are not always the same, right?

-Alex Mauer "hawke"


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] path or byway ?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

> > Could some native english speaker explain the difference between
> > "highway=path" and "highway=byway" recently introduced in map features ?
 
> For one, byway was never proposed or described or otherwise documented, 
> but instead just plopped into map features.  

Just like them darn motorways... nobody ever put them to vote, it's 
a shame ;-)

> So I guess no one really knows except Richard B, who put it there.

There are probably a few more millions who know what a byway is. 
In contrast to the generic term "path", a byway is something very 
specific in the UK because it has a legal meaning. The question has
been asked and answered a number of times on the lists, e.g. here:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2007-December/021047.html

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] path or byway ?

[Alex Mauer]

Pieren wrote:
> Dear talk,
>
> Could some native english speaker explain the difference between
> "highway=path" and "highway=byway" recently introduced in map features ?

For one, byway was never proposed or described or otherwise documented, 
but instead just plopped into map features.  So I guess no one really 
knows except Richard B, who put it there.

-Alex Mauer "hawke"


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] path or byway ?

[Pieren]

Dear talk,

Could some native english speaker explain the difference between
"highway=path" and "highway=byway" recently introduced in map features ?

The description is not obvious. Is it unpaved / paved ? Where is the limit
between path-byway and byway-unclassified ?

regards
Pieren
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk