e is the New Forest. It's 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
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 righ
railways) 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.
> > >
#x27; sign.
Nick
________
From: Adam Snape
Sent: 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. Whil
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
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
__
From: Adam Snape
Sent: 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
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
alway
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 sig
>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 h
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.
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changese
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 W
(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:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermai
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" a
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 ar
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
> highway=foo
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
