On 10 May 2012 23:46, Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com> wrote: > * It has previously been suggested that a "suspected=*" tag be used for > when a mapper is undecided. Unless there are objections, I will add > "suspected=*" (where * is one of the 4 options - public > footpath/bridleway/BOAT/RB) and a generic "suspected=row" to the wiki > guidelines. This may help us to help councils find lost way before the 2026 > deadline.
I don't think this proposed tagging is particularly helpful as it fails to distinguish between two issues: whether the way in question is suspected of being a recorded right of way (ie appearing on the definitive statement), or whether its known to be unrecorded (ie not on the definitive statement) but is suspected of being an right of way anyway. I think any proposed tagging in this area would need to distinguish between these cases. Also "suspected" is really too generic a name to use, since it doesn't tell us what key the suspected value belongs to. Maybe suspected:designation=* would be better? If the right of way is recorded in the Definitive Statement, then its 100% verifiable that it is indeed a right of way, and we can (given permission to use the Statement) record that in OSM. I think it's also useful for us to indicate that a way might fall into this category but we don't currently have sufficient evidence for a definite tagging. I don't think we necessarily need a special tag for this, since it's essentially the same issue we have in lots of places where we're unsure of how to tag things. fixme=* (or maybe even designation=fixme with a suitable note=*) could do the job here. Suspecting that a currently unrecorded route should be a right of way is quite a different thing. It's much more subjective, and I don't see how it would be verifiable that whatever legal requirements have been met, or indeed what class of right of way it would be found to be if an application was made. I'm not sure this sort of subjective data really belongs in OSM. The one thing we could say with certainty though is that there is no officially recorded designation for the way. So maybe a tagging along the lines of designation=unrecorded and access=customary (or foot=customary etc) might be a better way of expressing things. If it's been checked that the route doesn't appear on the definitive map and statement then designation=unrecorded is verifiable. access=customary would express the opinion that people are used to using the way as if it was allowed, but it's not known to be a legal right or explicitly permissive. (I guess there's technically another state for an unrecorded right of way that it might be useful to know about -- that an application to record has been submitted to have the route recorded, but the application hasn't been determined yet. In this case it might be useful to add a reference number or web link to the application in question if it's known.) Any thoughts? Robert. -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
