Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways
Andrew Hain wrote: > What distinction would you make between this and the cycle > route over steps that was discussed recently or the > signposted cycle route past cycle barriers in Barnes, > London? "Cycle routes" as a distinct concept don't have any legal force, other than authorised forms of signage in TSRGD. It would be nice if they did (in my patch as an NCN co-ordinator there's two notorious sections where the council pedestrianised the route…), but they don't. Obstructing "free passage" along a PRoW is a criminal offence (Highways Act 1980). Installing a stile or gate can only be done with the consent of the highway authority (same act). Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways
What distinction would you make between this and the cycle route over steps that was discussed recently or the signposted cycle route past cycle barriers in Barnes, London? -- Andrew From: Richard Fairhurst Sent: 14 December 2020 20:57 To: talk-gb OSM List (E-mail) Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways Neil Matthews wrote: > Looks like there's been an attempt to remove all stiles from > bridleways Um, no there hasn't? The changeset you've pointed to (which is one of mine) has a single stile moved to the side of a bridleway. I've done this a handful of times in the past, too, usually where the stile is clearly misplaced at a footpath/bridleway junction node rather than off to the side on a footpath, but occasionally at an isolated bridleway location like this. A barrier=stile on a long-established UK bridleway is 99.9% a mapping error. Bridleways are open to horses and bikes, and so stiles are forbidden - PRoW officers are pretty hot on this. You will sometimes see a stile placed to the side of a gate: in OSM this is usually mapped as a highway=footway through the stile and highway=bridleway through the gate, though of course there's no distinct public footpath PRoW in this case. OSM is an iterative process of fixup and improvement, and shouting "mechanical edit!" every time someone makes a change that hasn't been surveyed in walking boots and then manually etched onto the hard disc platters of a server somewhere in Amsterdam is not hugely helpful. I mean, just change it back and say "put back pending survey" if you feel that strongly, it doesn't need an entire mailing list thread. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 11:15:47PM +, Andy Mabbett wrote: > On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 20:57, ael via Talk-GB > wrote: > > > I would regard this as vandalism if it is removing surveyed real stiles > > to suit an ideal world where they are not permitted on bridleways. > > I favour the definitions used on the English Wikipedia, which make it > clear that vandalism is deliberate harm, and that any well-intentioned > edit, even if incorrect, is not vandalism, because: I am probably oversensitive because I have had cases where I have surveyed repeatedly with gps & photography and noted that in source tags, only to have armchair mappers "correct" the mapping. Although I suspect that in most cases they have just ignored the existing mapping. In this case, I only skimmed the changeset and failed to notice who had made the change. I regularly map not far from this area, and know that bridleways are often obstructed here (and elsewhere). I must say that in situations where I suspect a problem like that, I do usually contact the original mapper to discuss the situation rather than take unilateral action. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 20:57, ael via Talk-GB wrote: > I would regard this as vandalism if it is removing surveyed real stiles > to suit an ideal world where they are not permitted on bridleways. I favour the definitions used on the English Wikipedia, which make it clear that vandalism is deliberate harm, and that any well-intentioned edit, even if incorrect, is not vandalism, because: If an editor treats situations which are not clearly vandalism as such, it may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_is_not_vandalism -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways
I've also had an electric fence across a bridleway, and some very grumpy cows the other side of it. Luckily the farmer appeared and was very happy to let me through or it would have been retracing 3km of grassy riding on a touring bike. I'm rather prone to bike-hiking, even if not keen on it, so see the benefit of a correct "bicycle=yes" - and I'll try to fill in the tracktype, surface, and sometimes (rather subjective) bike difficulty when I get home. After Saturday's ride one bridleway should have been tagged "surface=water" As for comfy Cotswolds - I'm not far from there, so I know you get things like locked gates wrapped in barbed wire on bridleways, within the boundaries of the changeset that prompted this On 14/12/2020 21:51, Andy Townsend wrote: On 14/12/2020 20:57, Richard Fairhurst wrote: A barrier=stile on a long-established UK bridleway is 99.9% a mapping error. Bridleways are open to horses and bikes, and so stiles are forbidden - PRoW officers are pretty hot on this. That may be the case in the comfy Cotswolds but I'm not sure that necessarily the case everywhere else in the country. :) Actual steps on bridleways are common enough that I had to add a rendering for them at map.atownsend.org.uk (see https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=19&lat=54.417701&lon=-0.525549 ). I might have recently mentioned https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=21&lat=54.0087259&lon=-1.0201263 (a bridleway with an electric fence across it) on this list as well. There are plenty of signed bridleways where horse access might be difficult for other reasons: I set horse_scale=demanding on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/762748920 , but on balance it should perhaps be a higher value due to the difficulty in negotiating the descent. A subsequent mapper added bicycle=yes there - that's entirely correct, but the depth of the mud and the thickness of the trees would would be a challenge to even the keenest MTBer. With regard to this alleged stile, the previous tagging and location would suggest to me a barrier=horse_stile (mentioned earlier in the thread) on the bridleway rather than a barrier=stile off it, but so much here needs remapping or at the very least rechecking (the stream differs greatly from the imagery, at least one of the bridleways looks like a track to me, no designation tags) that personally I'd just stick it in the "needs survey" bucket. Best Regards, Andy ___ 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] Removing all stiles from bridleways
On 14/12/2020 20:57, Richard Fairhurst wrote: A barrier=stile on a long-established UK bridleway is 99.9% a mapping error. Bridleways are open to horses and bikes, and so stiles are forbidden - PRoW officers are pretty hot on this. That may be the case in the comfy Cotswolds but I'm not sure that necessarily the case everywhere else in the country. :) Actual steps on bridleways are common enough that I had to add a rendering for them at map.atownsend.org.uk (see https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=19&lat=54.417701&lon=-0.525549 ). I might have recently mentioned https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=21&lat=54.0087259&lon=-1.0201263 (a bridleway with an electric fence across it) on this list as well. There are plenty of signed bridleways where horse access might be difficult for other reasons: I set horse_scale=demanding on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/762748920 , but on balance it should perhaps be a higher value due to the difficulty in negotiating the descent. A subsequent mapper added bicycle=yes there - that's entirely correct, but the depth of the mud and the thickness of the trees would would be a challenge to even the keenest MTBer. With regard to this alleged stile, the previous tagging and location would suggest to me a barrier=horse_stile (mentioned earlier in the thread) on the bridleway rather than a barrier=stile off it, but so much here needs remapping or at the very least rechecking (the stream differs greatly from the imagery, at least one of the bridleways looks like a track to me, no designation tags) that personally I'd just stick it in the "needs survey" bucket. Best Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020, 20:58 ael via Talk-GB, wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 08:30:01PM +, Neil Matthews wrote: > > Looks like there's been an attempt to remove all stiles from bridleways > -- > > pretty sure I've seen this done in other edits -- agree that they're a > > potential anomaly but should they really be a mechanical edit (even if by > > hand)? See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95739504 > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > I would regard this as vandalism if it is removing surveyed real stiles > to suit an ideal world where they are not permitted on bridleways. > > Perhaps I have misunderstood? > My understanding is that the stiles in question were mapped as a tag on a bridleway / footway junction, and have been moved to a node on the footway. This is highly likely to be to be correct, since a (foot) stile is a construction at the point where a path crosses a fence and so topologically cannot occur at a junction. I would generally feel OK doing this without a ground survey if it was reasonably clear that there is a fence paralleling the bridleway, and that the footpath is crossing. This might be visible on aerial photography where the bridleway runs in the gap between two fields, for example. > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways
Neil Matthews wrote: > Looks like there's been an attempt to remove all stiles from > bridleways Um, no there hasn't? The changeset you've pointed to (which is one of mine) has a single stile moved to the side of a bridleway. I've done this a handful of times in the past, too, usually where the stile is clearly misplaced at a footpath/bridleway junction node rather than off to the side on a footpath, but occasionally at an isolated bridleway location like this. A barrier=stile on a long-established UK bridleway is 99.9% a mapping error. Bridleways are open to horses and bikes, and so stiles are forbidden - PRoW officers are pretty hot on this. You will sometimes see a stile placed to the side of a gate: in OSM this is usually mapped as a highway=footway through the stile and highway=bridleway through the gate, though of course there's no distinct public footpath PRoW in this case. OSM is an iterative process of fixup and improvement, and shouting "mechanical edit!" every time someone makes a change that hasn't been surveyed in walking boots and then manually etched onto the hard disc platters of a server somewhere in Amsterdam is not hugely helpful. I mean, just change it back and say "put back pending survey" if you feel that strongly, it doesn't need an entire mailing list thread. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 08:30:01PM +, Neil Matthews wrote: > Looks like there's been an attempt to remove all stiles from bridleways -- > pretty sure I've seen this done in other edits -- agree that they're a > potential anomaly but should they really be a mechanical edit (even if by > hand)? See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95739504 > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb I would regard this as vandalism if it is removing surveyed real stiles to suit an ideal world where they are not permitted on bridleways. Perhaps I have misunderstood? ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways
I have seen at least one bridleway with a stile (not a horse stile). Bridleways that were recently upgraded from public footpaths may still have old barriers. Just because there is a right of way, it doesn't mean that it's fully accessible (e.g a BOAT near Alton that has steps at one end). Jon On Mon, 14 Dec 2020, 20:31 Neil Matthews, wrote: > Looks like there's been an attempt to remove all stiles from bridleways > -- pretty sure I've seen this done in other edits -- agree that they're > a potential anomaly but should they really be a mechanical edit (even if > by hand)? See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95739504 > > Cheers, > Neil > > > ___ > 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
