Re: [Talk-GB] Portraying and labelling Countryside Access Map alignments and paths actually walked

[Bob Hawkins]

I apologise to everyone for making a mess of this thread’s title and replying 
twice with the same content.  I shall give myself one hundred lines (for those 
who remember the punishment)!

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Portraying and labelling Countryside Access Map

[Bob Hawkins]

It is fortunate for me that Oxfordshire County Council makes its Public Rights 
of Way shown in its Countryside Access Map downloadable.  I have been able to 
load data in .kml format by civil parish to my ‘phone as an overlay to OSM and 
follow the paths, track recording as I walk.  This allows both official and 
unofficial ways to be shown in appropriate circumstances (I appreciate not all 
will be appropriate).
Bob

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Access and other tags for a particular Restricted Byway

[Andy Townsend]

On 29/09/2017 19:40, Philip Barnes wrote:



Each needs a case by case survey, any can be motor_vehicle=private or 
destination.


I don't think that's what 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Table is trying to 
say - it's saying "there are no motor vehicle rights granted by the 
existence of a restricted byway sign" whereas "there are non-motorised 
vehicle rights".  I probably wouldn't use "=designated" where it says 
(though I know many people do), but other than that I'd agree with what 
it says.  The access column is labelled "Minimum Access Tags", so it is 
just a minimum.


Re "vehicle", strictly speaking you can legally drive a coach and four 
down a restricted byway.  Most of the time you won't physically be able 
to, of course, but that's the difference between what's legal and what's 
practical.


Best Regards,

Andy


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Access and other tags for a particular Restricted Byway

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2017-09-29 at 18:59 +0100, Bob Hawkins wrote:
> 
> Jerry
> I thank you for your helpful reply.
> One of my difficulties with Restricted Byways is the use of 
> motor_vehicle=no as shown in Robert Whittaker’s table, http://wiki.op
> enstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Table.  
> I use vehicle=yes in almost all cases, but there are properties on
> Restricted 
> Byways, as in this case, where I judge that tag to be inappropriate,
> to say the 
> least.

Hi Bob
I had never seen page, it does seem very misleading. Vehicle is an odd
tag, as a vehicle normally includes a bike. Those restrictions kind of
apply to public access by motor_vehicles.

There are two sorts of access when applied to rights of way, those
defined by the designation and what we have a right to do. But then
there are private rights too. You cannot put a blanket motor_vehicle=no
on a right of way, other than a byway it should not have yes but rights
of way (footpaths/bridleways/restricted byways) will often form access
to properties or fields. 

Each needs a case by case survey, any can be motor_vehicle=private or
destination.

Phil (trigpoint)___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Portraying and labelling Countryside Access Map

[Bob Hawkins]

It is fortunate for me that Oxfordshire County Council makes its Public Rights 
of Way shown in its Countryside Access Map downloadable.  I have been able to 
load data in .kml format by civil parish to my ‘phone as an overlay to OSM and 
follow the paths, track recording as I walk.  This allows both official and 
unofficial ways to be shown in appropriate circumstances (I appreciate not all 
will be appropriate).
Bob

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Access and other tags for a particular Restricted Byway

[Bob Hawkins]

Jerry
I thank you for your helpful reply.
One of my difficulties with Restricted Byways is the use of motor_vehicle=no as 
shown in Robert Whittaker’s table, 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Table.  I use vehicle=yes in 
almost all cases, but there are properties on Restricted Byways, as in this 
case, where I judge that tag to be inappropriate, to say the least.
Bob

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Access and other tags for a particular Restricted Byway

[SK53]

One simple rule of thumb: if the postman & delivery drivers go that way
it's =destination not =private.

"Private" roads, better called unadopted roads often get mapped with
access=private in the first instance. This is better reserved for places
where access is clearly limited by a gate or other barrier, as usually the
class of users regarded as entitled to use the road is broader than the
owners. See discussion of "The Park Estate" a few months back.

Jerry

On 29 September 2017 at 16:27, Bob Hawkins  wrote:

> David
> I should have made it clearer: the two signs of which I wrote are one
> above the other at the start of the one Restricted Byway – that, perhaps,
> is the complication.
> Bob
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
> <#m_-4348689220055214646_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Portraying and labelling Countryside Access Map alignments and paths actually walked

[SK53]

What I have done in such situations is:


   - Remove designation tags from the actually used paths. Access with
   foot=yes is
   - Add the formal line of the path with the designation tag and access
   tags, but without highway tags.

Specific examples I've mapped in the past couple of years:

   - Laxton Bridleway 2 . This
   is clearly signed from the road, but the line across crops/ploughed field
   is never used, probably because there is a ditch or drain at the road end.
   Andy (SomeoneElse) has also surveyed this path from the current path in use
   which skirts the edge of the wood.
   - Scalford Footpath E27 .
   There is a set-aside strip around the field and this is used in lieu of the
   official line.
   - Scalford Footpath  F22 .
   The official line of this path is built over. There are no traces of the
   path at it's northern end, but it obviously should start from a stile which
   is overgrown by a couple of feet of hawthorn. When I enquired about this
   path, the council wrote back "Unfortunately the farm buildings obstructing
   the Footpath have been there for many years.  This is obviously not
   something the County Council condones but fortunately Footpaths F24 and F22
   do provide alternative access and therefore the problems with F23 take a
   low priority."
   - Stanley Footpath 13 & Dale Abbey Footpaths 26 & 28
    . Two
   fields with a couple of examples of official lines crossing the field
   diagonally and being replaced on the ground by paths closer to the edges of
   the field (and probably reflecting better the actual desire lines of
   regular walkers).

In most cases the tagging is fairly ad hoc to meet the situation that I
encounter. As I am seeing more examples I am adding more information in the
form of additional tags, and in the process being more consistent. In
general I only add the official lines when there is adequate information on
the ground to identify them. For instance there are no traces of Trowell FP
16 on the ground, so I have not added anything to OSM
.

There is a thread from earlier this year discussing a similar issue.

Regards,

Jerry

PS. Apologies for accidentally sending a near-blank message

On 29 September 2017 at 14:35, Bob Hawkins  wrote:

> I should be interested to learn the general consensus regarding definitive
> alignments of Public Rights of Way and paths actually walked, and whether
> contributors have similar predicaments to mine.  I have two cases in
> Shiplake, Oxfordshire:
> 1. Shiplake FP 37  Footpath #528052488
>  Changeset #52405541
> 
> I had labelled the straight line path to the kissing gate before the
> railway as Shiplake FP 37, originally.  Since devoting my time to adding
> PRoW information in the Oxfordshire Chilterns and using Oxfordshire County
> Council’s Countryside Access Map, I have become aware of official path
> alignments.  I pondered long and hard over this issue.  I decided, finally,
> that it would be incorrect to label the straight line to the kissing gate
> before the railway as footpath 37, although this is the path used for a
> long time, and it makes no sense to walk the official alignment in an open,
> grassed field.  There has been nothing official to change its alignment, as
> far as I am aware, however.  I felt the best solution was to map footpath
> 37 as the Countryside Access Map shows, label it as such, and re-label the
> straight line as foot=yes, highway=footway alone.  Should anything arise to
> prevent that, it can be removed instantly without affecting anything else.
> 2. Shiplake FP 10  Footpath #23639524
>  Changeset #52419186
> 
> The opposite applies to footpath 10: walkers in this case take the
> right-angled fence line from the stile (at the junction with Shiplake FP
> 11) towards Plough Lane while the Countryside Access Map shows footpath 10
> crossing the field diagonally from a point before the stile.  This has the
> effect of labelling the short section immediately before the stile wrongly
> as footpath 10 when it should be footpath 11.  I plan to visit the site and
> alter OSM with the same attitude as for footpath 37.
> With regards
> Bob Hawkins
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
> <#m_5279560482354191821_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> 

Re: [Talk-GB] Access and other tags for a particular Restricted Byway

[Bob Hawkins]

David
I should have made it clearer: the two signs of which I wrote are one above the 
other at the start of the one Restricted Byway – that, perhaps, is the 
complication.
Bob

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Portraying and labelling Countryside Access Map alignments and paths actually walked

[SK53]

W

On 29 September 2017 at 14:35, Bob Hawkins  wrote:

> I should be interested to learn the general consensus regarding definitive
> alignments of Public Rights of Way and paths actually walked, and whether
> contributors have similar predicaments to mine.  I have two cases in
> Shiplake, Oxfordshire:
> 1. Shiplake FP 37  Footpath #528052488
>  Changeset #52405541
> 
> I had labelled the straight line path to the kissing gate before the
> railway as Shiplake FP 37, originally.  Since devoting my time to adding
> PRoW information in the Oxfordshire Chilterns and using Oxfordshire County
> Council’s Countryside Access Map, I have become aware of official path
> alignments.  I pondered long and hard over this issue.  I decided, finally,
> that it would be incorrect to label the straight line to the kissing gate
> before the railway as footpath 37, although this is the path used for a
> long time, and it makes no sense to walk the official alignment in an open,
> grassed field.  There has been nothing official to change its alignment, as
> far as I am aware, however.  I felt the best solution was to map footpath
> 37 as the Countryside Access Map shows, label it as such, and re-label the
> straight line as foot=yes, highway=footway alone.  Should anything arise to
> prevent that, it can be removed instantly without affecting anything else.
> 2. Shiplake FP 10  Footpath #23639524
>  Changeset #52419186
> 
> The opposite applies to footpath 10: walkers in this case take the
> right-angled fence line from the stile (at the junction with Shiplake FP
> 11) towards Plough Lane while the Countryside Access Map shows footpath 10
> crossing the field diagonally from a point before the stile.  This has the
> effect of labelling the short section immediately before the stile wrongly
> as footpath 10 when it should be footpath 11.  I plan to visit the site and
> alter OSM with the same attitude as for footpath 37.
> With regards
> Bob Hawkins
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
> <#m_3726063421128278465_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Portraying and labelling Countryside Access Map alignments and paths actually walked

[Bob Hawkins]

I should be interested to learn the general consensus regarding definitive 
alignments of Public Rights of Way and paths actually walked, and whether 
contributors have similar predicaments to mine.  I have two cases in Shiplake, 
Oxfordshire:
1. Shiplake FP 37  Footpath #528052488 Changeset #52405541
I had labelled the straight line path to the kissing gate before the railway as 
Shiplake FP 37, originally.  Since devoting my time to adding PRoW information 
in the Oxfordshire Chilterns and using Oxfordshire County Council’s Countryside 
Access Map, I have become aware of official path alignments.  I pondered long 
and hard over this issue.  I decided, finally, that it would be incorrect to 
label the straight line to the kissing gate before the railway as footpath 37, 
although this is the path used for a long time, and it makes no sense to walk 
the official alignment in an open, grassed field.  There has been nothing 
official to change its alignment, as far as I am aware, however.  I felt the 
best solution was to map footpath 37 as the Countryside Access Map shows, label 
it as such, and re-label the straight line as foot=yes, highway=footway alone.  
Should anything arise to prevent that, it can be removed instantly without 
affecting anything else.
2. Shiplake FP 10  Footpath #23639524 Changeset #52419186
The opposite applies to footpath 10: walkers in this case take the right-angled 
fence line from the stile (at the junction with Shiplake FP 11) towards Plough 
Lane while the Countryside Access Map shows footpath 10 crossing the field 
diagonally from a point before the stile.  This has the effect of labelling the 
short section immediately before the stile wrongly as footpath 10 when it 
should be footpath 11.  I plan to visit the site and alter OSM with the same 
attitude as for footpath 37.
With regards
Bob Hawkins

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Access and other tags for a particular Restricted Byway

[Philip Withnall]

On Fri, 2017-09-29 at 14:06 +0100, David Woolley wrote:
> On 29/09/17 13:56, Bob Hawkins wrote:
> 
> > In the absence of the image, the two signs read as follows: 1. In
> > white 
> > on blue: Oxfordshire County Council/No vehicles beyond this point
> > except 
> > for access. 
> 
> motor_vehicle=destination
> 
> >  2. In white on green: RESTRICTED BYWAY/PRIVATE
> > ROAD/NO 
> > vehicle access except for residents.  I should appreciate views on
> > the 
> 
> motor_vehicle=private
> 
> My reasoning, the first one allows all comers, as long as they are 
> visiting.  The second one requires explicit permission, either from
> the 
> land covenants or from a resident.

It would be good if this were added as an example on the wiki, if one
doesn’t exist already.

Philip

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Access and other tags for a particular Restricted Byway

[Andy Townsend]

On 29/09/2017 14:06, David Woolley wrote:


 2. In white on green: RESTRICTED BYWAY/PRIVATE ROAD/NO 
vehicle access except for residents.  I should appreciate views on the 


motor_vehicle=private 


Does the sign really mean "no vehicle access" or "no motor vehicle access"?

As I understand it a restricted byway is normally "vehicle=yes; 
motor_vehicle=no" and I'd normally tag them like that.  Of course there 
may be other restrictions (e.g. traffic regulation orders) in effect at 
a particular time.


Best Regards,

Andy

PS: for images I'd normally add them to an image hosting site like 
imgur.com and link to the result from the email.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Access and other tags for a particular Restricted Byway

[David Woolley]

On 29/09/17 13:56, Bob Hawkins wrote:

In the absence of the image, the two signs read as follows: 1. In white 
on blue: Oxfordshire County Council/No vehicles beyond this point except 
for access. 


motor_vehicle=destination

 2. In white on green: RESTRICTED BYWAY/PRIVATE ROAD/NO 
vehicle access except for residents.  I should appreciate views on the 


motor_vehicle=private

My reasoning, the first one allows all comers, as long as they are 
visiting.  The second one requires explicit permission, either from the 
land covenants or from a resident.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Access and other tags for a particular Restricted Byway

[Bob Hawkins]

I wished to attach an image of road signs in Shiplake, Oxfordshire, but was 
informed the file was too large.
In the absence of the image, the two signs read as follows: 1. In white on 
blue: Oxfordshire County Council/No vehicles beyond this point except for 
access.  2. In white on green: RESTRICTED BYWAY/PRIVATE ROAD/NO vehicle access 
except for residents.  I should appreciate views on the correct and complete 
treatment for access, motor_vehicle and vehicle keys, or anything else in this 
case, bearing in mind routing.  I find it difficult to know how to tag 
Restricted Byways correctly, often.  The Way is 25506222.
With regards
Bob Hawkins

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb