Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way again
For non-motorised ways access=private etc. becomes more important in e.g. England and Wales where the public has no rights other than on public rights of way (more or less the opposite of the allmannsrätt etc. e.g. in Nordic countries) and paths on the ground are not always easily distinguished. I don't often use access=private nut access=permissive is often useful as it describes the situation on the ground for e.g. a footpath where a landowner allows people to walk but they have no legal right to do so. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Ciaran Mooney [mailto:general.moo...@googlemail.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 15:07 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way again Hi, >>and then use access= to describe privacy or otherwise ... > > Hmm, I haven't done that so far. My normal policy is that if it's > clearly private (like the path to someone's front door) I will not map it at all. > But > communal paths shared between two or more houses, or on commercial > rather than residential land, I will add. I will map anything that my access has not been restricted to. Ie A road is obviously private, however access has not been restricted by a gate etc. Occasionally I get asked a few questions, but explaining the situation usually gets a good response. If I'm asked to leave on road that is private I will leave. Simple. Ciarán ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way again
Hi, >>and then use access= to describe privacy or otherwise ... > > Hmm, I haven't done that so far. My normal policy is that if it's clearly > private (like the path to someone's front door) I will not map it at all. > But > communal paths shared between two or more houses, or on commercial rather > than > residential land, I will add. I will map anything that my access has not been restricted to. Ie A road is obviously private, however access has not been restricted by a gate etc. Occasionally I get asked a few questions, but explaining the situation usually gets a good response. If I'm asked to leave on road that is private I will leave. Simple. Ciarán ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way again
Mike Harris googlemail.com> writes: >I probably would tend to use 'service' for both (based on function) and use >'track' for something unsurfaced (tracktype=) but wide enough for a >4-wheeled vehicle Agreed, this is what I do (sorry it wasn't clear). If it has grass growing on it then it's a 'track', if it is well-maintained it's a 'service road'. >and then use access= to describe privacy or otherwise ... Hmm, I haven't done that so far. My normal policy is that if it's clearly private (like the path to someone's front door) I will not map it at all. But communal paths shared between two or more houses, or on commercial rather than residential land, I will add. -- Ed Avis ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way again
I probably would tend to use 'service' for both (based on function) and use 'track' for something unsurfaced (tracktype=) but wide enough for a 4-wheeled vehicle and then use access= to describe privacy or otherwise ... But each to his own! Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Ed Avis [mailto:e...@waniasset.com] Sent: 05 March 2009 10:43 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way again Mike Harris googlemail.com> writes: [private roads] >How about using highway=service (and even including service=driveway) >for some of these as these are existing documented tags? Yes, I sometimes use service and sometimes track. In general if it's a dead-end path to a set of garages I call it a 'track', while a well-maintained road that just happens to be private is 'service'. -- Ed Avis ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way again
Mike Harris googlemail.com> writes: [private roads] >How about using highway=service (and even including service=driveway) for >some of these as these are existing documented tags? Yes, I sometimes use service and sometimes track. In general if it's a dead-end path to a set of garages I call it a 'track', while a well-maintained road that just happens to be private is 'service'. -- Ed Avis ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way again
How about using highway=service (and even including service=driveway) for some of these as these are existing documented tags? OTOH I do sometimes feel a need for tagging a public right of way footpath that is not physically walkable! Usually I add a note if the presets for obstructions / barriers do not suffice. Some better rendering of some of the barriers e.g. =fence would be nice - - Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Ed Avis [mailto:e...@waniasset.com] Sent: 03 March 2009 11:21 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way again I am always coming across private roads, which are physically there but not rights of way, and occasionally footpaths which are rights of way but not physically passable! I am surprised that a schema for representing this hasn't been developed already. I have seen access=private suggested for the former case. Although often there are privately roads which are still accessible to the public, for example the track past some playing fields to a sports pavilion, or the pavement of London's South Bank which is privately owned but a public space. If you wanted to be fully general you would have a table of flags, for example a bridle path: Physical Designation Foot yesyes Bicycle yesyes Horse yesyes Motorcar yesno I think this is going too far. I would be happy with designation=footpath, designation=bridle_path, and designation=byway to mark ways which look unpaved physically but are rights of way, and access=private to mark those which look inviting but are in practice unusable by the public. The in-between cases of a privately owned space which is open to the public (like the South Bank) and a road which is not public but not completely forbidden either (like a drive leading to a country hotel) I would be happy to leave untagged. There are also some where you're not quite sure if they are private or not, like a track between two houses leading to a shared garage area. I tend to map these as highway=track, which fairly represents the physical condition of the road and also gives a hint to the map reader that they might be semi-private. I don't feel a burning need for a tag to represent this, especially as IANAL and I don't know exactly what the access rights are. -- Ed Avis ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way again
Nick I'm very much with you on this. In fact, I have already started using designated= tags as I think they solve a number of problems that have been discussed here. If there are rendering advantages as well, so much the better. You're more experienced in the mysterious ways of OSM than am I, so I assume that you'll start some sort of polling / voting procedure? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Nick Whitelegg [mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk] Sent: 03 March 2009 09:53 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] Rights of way again Hello everyone, Have had a think about this, primarily as part of developing new styles for the shortly to be relaunched Freemap (UK) / OpenFootMap (worldwide, potentially) OSM site for walkers/hikers/horse riders. I now think the designation tag is a good thing as it simplifies the Mapnik XML rendering rules significantly. It could always be internationalised, for instance in the UK it could be "public_footpath", "public_bridleway", "permissive_footpath" etc, while in other countries it could be the equivalent. This could then be combined with tags representing the type of way, e.g. track, footway and path (treating the last two equivalently for the moment) and surface tags to indicate the surface. >From a rendering point of view I can envisage two layers, one for the physical ways and another to indicate where walkers/horse riders are allowed to go. The layer would show double dashed lines for tracks or single dashed lines for paths/footways, and then the second layer could have thicker transparent lines for actual rights of way (or permissive routes), a bit like the cycle map. Tracks known to be private (something the Ordnance Survey do not show, and therefore something that could be a big advantage over OS maps) could be overlaid by a transparent red line to indicate "do not go here". Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way again
>Tracks known to be private (something the Ordnance >Survey do not show, and therefore something that could be a big advantage >over OS maps) could be overlaid by a transparent red line to indicate "do >not go here". I personally would be very wary of this approach, as "known to be private" can be a matter of opinion. Some landowners go to great lengths to deny access to anyone on their land, regardless of whether there is a public right of way or not. I have seen big "Private" signs in places which aren't private at all. Just the other day I was approached by a security guard on an industrial estate and told it was private property and that I had no right to be there and would I please remove myself. I checked later on an OS map and it turns out that I certainly would have a right to be there as a pedestrian (although in fact I was in a car at the time), so we shouldn't just trust what someone with a vested interest tells us. For that matter, the road I live on is "unadopted", so could technically be described as private (as indeed many unadopted roads are), but it wouldn't make any sense to mark it as private on OSM. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rights of way again
I am always coming across private roads, which are physically there but not rights of way, and occasionally footpaths which are rights of way but not physically passable! I am surprised that a schema for representing this hasn't been developed already. I have seen access=private suggested for the former case. Although often there are privately roads which are still accessible to the public, for example the track past some playing fields to a sports pavilion, or the pavement of London's South Bank which is privately owned but a public space. If you wanted to be fully general you would have a table of flags, for example a bridle path: Physical Designation Foot yesyes Bicycle yesyes Horse yesyes Motorcar yesno I think this is going too far. I would be happy with designation=footpath, designation=bridle_path, and designation=byway to mark ways which look unpaved physically but are rights of way, and access=private to mark those which look inviting but are in practice unusable by the public. The in-between cases of a privately owned space which is open to the public (like the South Bank) and a road which is not public but not completely forbidden either (like a drive leading to a country hotel) I would be happy to leave untagged. There are also some where you're not quite sure if they are private or not, like a track between two houses leading to a shared garage area. I tend to map these as highway=track, which fairly represents the physical condition of the road and also gives a hint to the map reader that they might be semi-private. I don't feel a burning need for a tag to represent this, especially as IANAL and I don't know exactly what the access rights are. -- Ed Avis ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
