an unusual case
> >>>> in that there are no rights of way (except, to guarantee access I
> >>>> suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths are implicitly
> >>>> open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a
> >>>> permissiv
From: Nick Whitelegg
Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11
To: Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in
the countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas
with public access, which are not rights of way but which
n
ays) but all paths are implicitly
> > > open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a
> > > permissive path' notice.
> > >
> > > Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to
> > > forestry operations.
> > >
> > >
: 11 July 2020 06:20
To: Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as an
error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might be the
tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular
ce.
>
> Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to forestry
> operations.
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> From: Nick Whitelegg
> Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11
> To: Talk GB
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
>
>
there is no explicit 'This is a
permissive path' notice.
Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to forestry operations.
Nick
From: Nick Whitelegg
Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11
To: Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
I would probably add
To: Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as an
error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might be the
tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to remove it and,
indeed
It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as
an error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might
be the tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to
remove it and, indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is
Hi, I'm the changeset commenter,
I added the foot=yes on the common based on it being a registered common
with definite legal access. I also add foot=yes to signed public footpaths.
I would only add foot=designated where there is a blue person sign or
similar (not a green/wooden public footpath
>I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning for
>highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over >from a preset in Potlatch
>1.
>
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87672607
>
>I got a changeset comment querying the edit.
Hi Andrew,
My understanding is that
Hi,
It's worth pointing out that if Wimbledon Common is (as I assume)
registered as common land then there would normally be a legal right of
access on foot under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, so
foot=yes would be correct.
Kind regards,
Adam
On Fri, 2020-07-10 at 11:54 +, Andrew Hain wrote:
> I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning
> for highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over from a preset
> in Potlatch 1.
>
>
>
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87672607
>
>
>
>
>
> I
Jul 10, 2020, 14:49 by ajt1...@gmail.com:
> On 10/07/2020 12:54, Andrew Hain wrote:
>
>> I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning for
>> highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over from a preset in Potlatch
>> 1.
>>
>>
On 10/07/2020 13:35, David Woolley wrote:
> On 10/07/2020 13:11, Colin Smale wrote:
>> What does "legally accessible" mean? Are they Public Footpaths? Do we
>> tag all Public Footpaths with an explicit "foot=yes" or is
>> "designation=public_footpath" enough?
>>
>
> I don't know the situation in
(apologies for the double reply)
I just remembered I wrote a diary entry last year about this:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/391053 . That has
some useful links in such as a pointer to the start of "designation"
tagging, in 2009:
On 10/07/2020 12:54, Andrew Hain wrote:
I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning
for highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over from a preset
in Potlatch 1.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87672607
If Osmose is flagging "highway=footway;foot=yes"
On 10/07/2020 13:11, Colin Smale wrote:
What does "legally accessible" mean? Are they Public Footpaths? Do we
tag all Public Footpaths with an explicit "foot=yes" or is
"designation=public_footpath" enough?
I don't know the situation in Wimbledon Common, but most footpaths in
public park
The changeset comment seems backwards to me, foot=designated is more
specific than foot=yes (which would be the default for any mapped footpath).
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 1:12 PM Colin Smale wrote:
> What does "legally accessible" mean? Are they Public Footpaths? Do we tag
> all Public Footpaths
What does "legally accessible" mean? Are they Public Footpaths? Do we
tag all Public Footpaths with an explicit "foot=yes" or is
"designation=public_footpath" enough?
On 2020-07-10 13:54, Andrew Hain wrote:
> I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning for
>
I have always believed that highway=footway in the UK implies foot=yes (and
not foot=designated), though I actually don't know if UK tagging practice
is successfully documented. IMHO the use of "designated" is quite specific
and probably shouldn't be assumed as an invisible default.
Best
Dan
Op
I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning for
highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over from a preset in Potlatch 1.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87672607
I got a changeset comment querying the edit.
* I note you have removed foot=yes
21 matches
Mail list logo
