Hello Andy, > Hi, > > I've been out in the Forest of Bere[1] grabbing GPS traces of the paths > running through the forest but I'm not 100% sure of the best way to tag > them on OSM. The paths themselves run can vary between maintained paths > which are wide enough to drive a vehicle down (but are not permitted) to > simple unmaintained tracks between the trees. A list of access > permissions can be found on this website[2] and there is also an > official ROW (a footpath) on some of the paths. > > I've tagged them as permissive bridleways and used foot=yes to denote > the paths that the footpath uses but I'm left with a couple of > unresolved issues: > > * Horse riding is for permit holders only but my current tagging > scheme does not make this clear. > * Should the official ROW be tagged as highway=footway, > horse=permissive or highway=bridleway, foot=yes? Is there any > difference between the two? > > If you were tagging this what would you do?
As it happens I've come across several similar instances in the last few days. On Saturday at Hindhead, Surrey I came across a public footpath with permissive horse rights. My decision on tagging was: highway=bridleway; foot=yes; horse=permissive I used highway=bridleway because it basically "is" a bridleway, albeit a permissive one. Yesterday I was in the Woolmer Forest between Liphook and Liss in Hampshire, which is an area of army-owned access land. There are a number of paths there, access is a bit unclear so I assumed they were all foot only. They were all highway=footway; foot=permissive but the gravel tracks I also added "surface=gravel". If it had been the New Forest I would have put "newforest:pathtype=gravel", but it wasn't, so I didn't :-) We really need to sort out the whole access-rights-versus-physical-description thing :-) Nick _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
