[OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
I've come across a problematic way near me: It is a reasonably wide road, but the signs at each end say it is a bridleway. I would guess this is a service road (i.e. leads to a few private residences/farms etc) over which runs a bridleway. If this is the case I would tag as highway=service; foot=yes; horse=yes; bicycle=yes and maybe add motorcar=private though I don't really consider this essential. This tagging scheme indicates that foot,horse and bike have access over the service road which they don't have over all service roads. This will also allow the Freemap renderer to show the service road with the bridleway symbol (dashed red line) overlaid to indicate that you can walk/ride along the way. More info at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/UK_Countryside_mapping Nick Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
It's not quite a 1:1 mapping - a UK bridleway also means cycles permitted by right and a whole host of other stuff, so it's a valuable piece of information in itself. By all means tag the individual users (horse=yes, bicycle=yes, etc.), but I'd consider the official bridleway status a useful, taggable fact in itself. What I'd like to get some idea of is what people as a whole consider highway=bridleway on its own(with no foot/horse/etc tags added) to mean - do people on the whole consider this to be a public bridleway, or a permissive bridleway? On freemap I assume permissive unless foot/horse=yes is added, rather like highway=footway is assumed to be permissive (in view of the large number of permssive footways in towns). Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
Nick Whitelegg wrote: Sent: 14 May 2008 9:40 AM To: Richard Fairhurst Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways It's not quite a 1:1 mapping - a UK bridleway also means cycles permitted by right and a whole host of other stuff, so it's a valuable piece of information in itself. By all means tag the individual users (horse=yes, bicycle=yes, etc.), but I'd consider the official bridleway status a useful, taggable fact in itself. What I'd like to get some idea of is what people as a whole consider highway=bridleway on its own(with no foot/horse/etc tags added) to mean - do people on the whole consider this to be a public bridleway, or a permissive bridleway? On freemap I assume permissive unless foot/horse=yes is added, rather like highway=footway is assumed to be permissive (in view of the large number of permssive footways in towns). I generally only use highway=bridleway when the signs at the end of the route say it's a public bridleway. Otherwise how would I know if it is or not. However if there is some indication that it's a route suitable for horse riders (eg an official looking horseshoe symbol) then I'll tag that as bridleway too unless a higher usage is allowed. Cheers Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
On 14 May 2008, at 09:35, Nick Whitelegg wrote: and maybe add motorcar=private though I don't really consider this essential. I find it interesting that you use motorcar, as I generally just use car, as that is what I think is on the wiki (unless someone has decided to change it). Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
On Wed, 14 May 2008, Shaun McDonald wrote: I find it interesting that you use motorcar, as I generally just use car, as that is what I think is on the wiki (unless someone has decided to change it). The wiki uses motorcar as the access restriction tag. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
On 14 May 2008, at 16:18, Steve Hill wrote: On Wed, 14 May 2008, Shaun McDonald wrote: I find it interesting that you use motorcar, as I generally just use car, as that is what I think is on the wiki (unless someone has decided to change it). The wiki uses motorcar as the access restriction tag. Grr, must have misread and misremembered it then :-( Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 09:40 +0100, Nick Whitelegg wrote: It's not quite a 1:1 mapping - a UK bridleway also means cycles permitted by right and a whole host of other stuff, so it's a valuable piece of information in itself. By all means tag the individual users (horse=yes, bicycle=yes, etc.), but I'd consider the official bridleway status a useful, taggable fact in itself. What I'd like to get some idea of is what people as a whole consider highway=bridleway on its own(with no foot/horse/etc tags added) to mean - do people on the whole consider this to be a public bridleway, or a permissive bridleway? On freemap I assume permissive unless foot/horse=yes is added, rather like highway=footway is assumed to be permissive (in view of the large number of permssive footways in towns). Nick If I come across a bridleway sign, I'll tag it as highway=bridleway, assuming that horse=yes is implied. As Andy says, how else would I know it's a bridleway? I generally find that footpaths in towns is an odd situation, some are clearly regarded as public rights of way (some I've seen even having full road name-like signs informing you of that [0]). Signing differs wildly between london boroughs, Sutton having relatively few signs (although an oddly signed bridleway down the back of houses[1] does exist). On the other hand, Croydon signs every single one of the footpaths I've seen with their own reference number and often a destination - even if it's just the next road. If something specifically informed me that it was permissive, I'd tag up horse=permissive etc. [0] http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.35598lon=-0.16353zoom=16layers=0BFT Footpath No. 77, The Avenue (ref=78) [1] Bridleway north of the railway line in [0] -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
If I come across a bridleway sign, I'll tag it as highway=bridleway, assuming that horse=yes is implied. As Andy says, how else would I know it's a bridleway? There could be permissive bridleway signs (prevalent in parts of Surrey) or evidence of horse use through it being a wide sandy track with horse prints. In the latter case, and in the absence of signs, I tend to tag as permissive bridleway. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
I've come across a problematic way near me: It is a reasonably wide road, but the signs at each end say it is a bridleway. It has a gate across the east end end so you can't drive along it from the east, but you can drive along it from the west end. The west end has no restrictions other than a sign saying No Though Road. There are a couple of buildings down there, so someone might have legitimate reason for driving along it even though they can't get out at the other end. So I'm a bit unsure how to tag it - any suggestions? Thoughts that spring to mind are either highway=bridleway, motorcar=yes or highway=unclassified. Presumably with a highway=gate, motorcar=no node on the gated end, or maybe highway=gate, horse=yes, foot=yes. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
Steve Hill wrote: Sent: 13 May 2008 9:47 AM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways I've come across a problematic way near me: It is a reasonably wide road, but the signs at each end say it is a bridleway. It has a gate across the east end end so you can't drive along it from the east, but you can drive along it from the west end. The west end has no restrictions other than a sign saying No Though Road. There are a couple of buildings down there, so someone might have legitimate reason for driving along it even though they can't get out at the other end. So I'm a bit unsure how to tag it - any suggestions? Thoughts that spring to mind are either highway=bridleway, motorcar=yes or highway=unclassified. Presumably with a highway=gate, motorcar=no node on the gated end, or maybe highway=gate, horse=yes, foot=yes. This is an example of confusing the physical space with the legal administrative description. If it's a paved road from the end then unclassified, residential, or service would be the appropriate tag for the physical. On top of that its horse=yes. To add the bridleway specifically I would add bridleway=true as a tag as well. Just because it's a bridleway does not necessarily mean car=no. The landowner will almost certainly have access over the route. Since it's a bridleway however the public probably do not (unless its permissive). Cheers Andy - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1430 - Release Date: 13/05/2008 7:31 AM ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
Steve Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sent: 13 May 2008 10:31 AM To: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways On Tue, 13 May 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: This is an example of confusing the physical space with the legal administrative description. Yes, but sadly the highway tag is defined in Map Features to encompass that confusing mixture of physical and legal descriptions. :) Yes it is, that's the one thing I wish I had thought of when I produced the original list back when the dinosaurs were still roaming the land ;-) (It is something we should probably try to move away from, but that's another discussion). Just because it's a bridleway does not necessarily mean car=no. The wiki indicates that OSM considers highway=bridleway to be a footpath which horses are permitted on (I would think highway=footway, horse=yes would be better and am in favour of getting rid of highway=bridleway entirely. However, I also want to be consistent with what other people are doing.) The wiki is not very cleverly worded then. Probably because its trying to combine the physical description with the legal access situation. The landowner will almost certainly have access over the route. Since it's a bridleway however the public probably do not (unless its permissive). In this case, I imagine the highway belongs to the National Grid, since it provides access to the Swansea North substation and some of their offices. However, at the west end of the highway there is no private, no cars, etc signs, just a No through road sign (which makes sense since there is a gate at the other end... probably to prevent people rat-running). Also, there are currently some roadworks on the highway, which are signed as you would expect them to be if they were on a public road (the normal red-triangle roadworks and blue-circle-with-white-arrow keep right signs). Maintenance of signs is often slapdash. Often signage is only added if the way is being abused and the landowner wants to put a stop to it. A gate at each end and a padlock usually gets over most issues, but in this case they would need to leave access for bikes/horses/walkers if they did that. Cheers Andy - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
Steve Hill wrote: On Tue, 13 May 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: This is an example of confusing the physical space with the legal administrative description. Yes, but sadly the highway tag is defined in Map Features to encompass that confusing mixture of physical and legal descriptions. :) (It is something we should probably try to move away from, but that's another discussion). Apologies to those who've heard me blether on about this before, but in my mind the highway tag indicates purpose. In other words: what's the way there for? In the UK, at least, the administrative category (M, A-primary, A, B etc.) usually correlates pretty well to the purpose (in fact, one influences the other). But occasionally there's a really glaring discrepancy between purpose and category. In which case, we follow the Oxford High Street Rule: tag for purpose, but make sure the administrative category is still recorded. (The High Street in Oxford is nominally the A420, so we tag ref=A420, but it's no good as a through-route - the bollards are a bit of a giveaway - so we tag highway=tertiary.) Skimming the thread, your road sounds like highway=unclassified; designation=bridleway. Or something - finding a consensus for designation= is left as an exercise for the reader. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
On Tue, 13 May 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: This is an example of confusing the physical space with the legal administrative description. Yes, but sadly the highway tag is defined in Map Features to encompass that confusing mixture of physical and legal descriptions. :) (It is something we should probably try to move away from, but that's another discussion). Just because it's a bridleway does not necessarily mean car=no. The wiki indicates that OSM considers highway=bridleway to be a footpath which horses are permitted on (I would think highway=footway, horse=yes would be better and am in favour of getting rid of highway=bridleway entirely. However, I also want to be consistent with what other people are doing.) The landowner will almost certainly have access over the route. Since it's a bridleway however the public probably do not (unless its permissive). In this case, I imagine the highway belongs to the National Grid, since it provides access to the Swansea North substation and some of their offices. However, at the west end of the highway there is no private, no cars, etc signs, just a No through road sign (which makes sense since there is a gate at the other end... probably to prevent people rat-running). Also, there are currently some roadworks on the highway, which are signed as you would expect them to be if they were on a public road (the normal red-triangle roadworks and blue-circle-with-white-arrow keep right signs). - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
On Tue, 13 May 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote: (The High Street in Oxford is nominally the A420, so we tag ref=A420, but it's no good as a through-route - the bollards are a bit of a giveaway - so we tag highway=tertiary.) I'm left wondering why they haven't removed the A-road designation if they put bollards in... Anyway, I'm going a bit off topic now. :) Skimming the thread, your road sounds like highway=unclassified; designation=bridleway. Or something - finding a consensus for designation= is left as an exercise for the reader. horse=yes seems as descriptive as designation=bridleway. I think I will settle on highway=unclassified, access=private, foot=yes, horse=yes, bicycle=permissive, motorcar=permissive. I don't actually know the status of bike and car access, but the fact that it has been signed as a bridleway indicates to me that pedestrians and horses have a legal right of way along there. Thanks for the input folks. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging bridleways
Steve Hill wrote: I'm left wondering why they haven't removed the A-road designation if they put bollards in... Anyway, I'm going a bit off topic now. :) We had a thread about it on talk-gb which I think concluded it would have been better designated as the WTF420. horse=yes seems as descriptive as designation=bridleway. It's not quite a 1:1 mapping - a UK bridleway also means cycles permitted by right and a whole host of other stuff, so it's a valuable piece of information in itself. By all means tag the individual users (horse=yes, bicycle=yes, etc.), but I'd consider the official bridleway status a useful, taggable fact in itself. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
