Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

2020-05-05 Thread Mike Baggaley via Talk-GB
>Highway=no seems acceptable to me where a path is permanently physically >blocked by a building or such-like. We're not serving anyone by directing >people into wals. I do, however, disagree with its use to tag definitive >rights of way which are useable but which merely deviate from the route a >

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

2020-05-05 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 11:54, Adam Snape wrote: > I'd consider this particular proposed use of highway=no to mean "there is a > public highway here but there's no visible path on the ground" to be a > somewhat country-specific and counter-intuitive tagging practice. It's > certainly being sugges

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

2020-05-05 Thread Adam Snape
On Tue, 5 May 2020, 13:26 Martin Wynne, wrote: > Is a "public right of way" a highway? > > I suggest not. It's a legal construct, similar to a boundary line. > > Perhaps it should be mapped as a separate way, sometimes sharing nodes > with a physical highway, sometimes not. > In English/Welsh la

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

2020-05-05 Thread Martin Wynne
Is a "public right of way" a highway? I suggest not. It's a legal construct, similar to a boundary line. Perhaps it should be mapped as a separate way, sometimes sharing nodes with a physical highway, sometimes not. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

2020-05-05 Thread Adam Snape
Hi, Highway=no seems acceptable to me where a path is permanently physically blocked by a building or such-like. We're not serving anyone by directing people into wals. I do, however, disagree with its use to tag definitive rights of way which are useable but which merely deviate from the route a

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

2020-05-05 Thread Andy Townsend
On 05/05/2020 11:53, Adam Snape wrote: Hi Tom, I'd consider this particular proposed use of highway=no to mean "there is a public highway here but there's no visible path on the ground" to be a somewhat country-specific and counter-intuitive tagging practice. It's certainly being suggested he

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

2020-05-05 Thread Adam Snape
Hi Tom, I'd consider this particular proposed use of highway=no to mean "there is a public highway here but there's no visible path on the ground" to be a somewhat country-specific and counter-intuitive tagging practice. It's certainly being suggested here as a solution to a country-specific issue

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

2020-05-05 Thread Tom Hukins
On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 11:08:16PM +0100, Adam Snape wrote: > Most data consumers won't be expecting this highly country-specific > tagging of highway=no Why do you consider "highway=no" country-specific? Taginfo suggests it's used across Europe and occasionally elsewhere: https://taginfo.openstr