Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
Would it be better to have something other than yes to mean legally enshrined access permission to protect against people tagging stuff as yes without fully understanding what it means (i.e. people not reading the wiki)? I think it would. I suggest access=highway It would have to be contained within the foot, horse, bicycle, and motorcar tags though, so that the official rights of *each* mode of transport can be described. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
A path with horse,foot,cycle=yes still isn't a bridleway though (e.g. on a bridleway, cycles are permitted but the surface doesn't have to be suitable for cycling - a situation more complex than just cycle=yes). The legal bridleway has more attributes than just who is allowed to travel along it (e.g. races can't be held on bridleways) It also can't be easily updated if the laws change - bikes weren't always allowed on bridleways, and hasn't the list of vehicles allowed on byways changed recently? The issue isn't so much discussion of loads of new tags, but the potential loss of existing data if people start using highway=bridleway for something which isn't one (or use horse=yes instead of a bridleway tag, which has pretty much the same effect) On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Nick Whitelegg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would it be better to have something other than yes to mean legally enshrined access permission to protect against people tagging stuff as yes without fully understanding what it means (i.e. people not reading the wiki)? I think it would. I suggest access=highway It would have to be contained within the foot, horse, bicycle, and motorcar tags though, so that the official rights of *each* mode of transport can be described. Nick ___ 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] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
A path with horse,foot,cycle=yes still isn't a bridleway though It depends what's meant by yes - does it mean official, legal rights? On reflection maybe designated is better than yes. (e.g. on a bridleway, cycles are permitted but the surface doesn't have to be suitable for cycling - a situation more complex than just cycle=yes). The legal bridleway has more attributes than just who is allowed to travel along it (e.g. races can't be held on bridleways) One could sort this out though by means of the surface tag, and indeed any other tags that might be relevant. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
On Tuesday 20 May 2008 10:20:59 OJ W wrote: The issue isn't so much discussion of loads of new tags, but the potential loss of existing data if people start using highway=bridleway for something which isn't one But what is a bridleway? From your talk it seems like the tag can only be used for something that is a bridleway in the eyes of the British (or possibly local) law. Except nowhere on the wiki can I find anything that says that. Both Map Features and the Tag:highway=bridleway read: For horses, (in the UK, generally footpaths on which horses are also permitted) If in the Netherlands we would limit the tagging of bridleways (dutch: ruiterpaden) to what is one legally, then we wouldn't have many, as I don't remember ever having seen the official sign for it. (A round blue sign with a white horse and rider) However I have seen plenty of paths which are signed with a rectangular sign with the word ruiterpad and/or are physically only suitable for horse riders. (too narrow for vehicles and with deep loose sand; think dry part of a sandy beach) So to sum it up: Do the ways currently tagged with bridleway conform to your narrow definition or is there already no data to loose, because it is already use for ways which are physically, but not legally paths for horses. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Cartinus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So to sum it up: Do the ways currently tagged with bridleway conform to your narrow definition or is there already no data to loose, because it is already use for ways which are physically, but not legally paths for horses. I would consider all the existing tagging as of suspect interpretation. For example, foot=yes is almost entirely meaningless as right of pedestrian access enshrined in law since it's been added by default to every highway=footway in potlatch for some time. But then again, it's a wiki, so all the data will always be of suspect interpretation to a greater or lesser extent :-) Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
Nick Whitelegg wrote: It would have to be contained within the foot, horse, bicycle, and motorcar tags though, so that the official rights of *each* mode of transport can be described. I think it's been implied for a long time that all the values for the access key apply to all of the mode-of-transport keys as well. Certainly http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:access seems to suggest that it does. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
Andy Allan wrote: On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Cartinus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So to sum it up: Do the ways currently tagged with bridleway conform to your narrow definition or is there already no data to loose, because it is already use for ways which are physically, but not legally paths for horses. I would consider all the existing tagging as of suspect interpretation. For example, foot=yes is almost entirely meaningless as right of pedestrian access enshrined in law since it's been added by default to every highway=footway in potlatch for some time. Agreed. I would expect that all the access tags have that problem, not just foot. I don't think the yes value has ever been defined in that manner, so I'm certain it's been applied to routes which are not rights-of-way. I know I've always understood yes to mean that [vehicle type]s are capable of traversing this route, and are not forbidden to use it. Certainly nothing currently in the wiki appears to contradict that. I'm also quite certain that footway/cycleway/bridleway have been applied to routes which do not follow the UK definition. (In other words, there is already no right-of-way data to lose). -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
Steve Hill wrote: Would it be better to have something other than yes to mean legally enshrined access permission to protect against people tagging stuff as yes without fully understanding what it means (i.e. people not reading the wiki)? I think it would. I suggest access=highway -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 OJ W wrote: | Are there any use-cases for keeping the legal designations of | rights-of-way (aware that this is very UK-specific..) | | 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 Perhaps we should tag them legal=footpath/bridleway/whatever | (p.s. before just proposing a new tag for legal status, consider that | lots of existing bridleways/footpaths/byways will have already been | tagged based on the RoW signs and we might want to keep that | information) Yes, but lots have been tagged not based on legal status, and we don't want to misrepresent those. It's better to have no data than wrong data on a way. Robert (Jamie) Munro -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkguvKQACgkQz+aYVHdncI2oCgCfaAgpf3RL4tHolDoJcdF6iVYO kpwAn3vrWTFoVYReKNhi7AP6NTV2WEoh =arHg -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
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 talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
Nick Whitelegg wrote: But that's what foot and horse are for. highway=path could easily be used to distinguish public and permissive footpaths and bridleways. Would it be better to have something other than yes to mean legally enshrined access permission to protect against people tagging stuff as yes without fully understanding what it means (i.e. people not reading the wiki)? -- - 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] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)
OJ W schrieb: 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. Yes, that's why I started to add certain road signs in my area to our database, especially those denoting foot and cycleways. Thus far I used traffic_sign=z240 etc. where z240 means the reference number assign to it in the StVO (legal text about road transport): http://bundesrecht.juris.de/stvo/index.html and http://bundesrecht.juris.de/stvo/__41.html (interesting road signs). -- Karl Eichwalder ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
