Thanks Richard & Andy, Just to address Andy's comment about new users tagging all footpaths as "designation=public_footpath" regardless of legal status (as they have seen it used elsewhere). Two points. First Potlatch hides advanced tags away from the simple point and click drop down menus; this may help. Second, when I started out if I came across a new tag I would search it on the wiki before using it. Hopefully others will do the same so if we can get the wiki as clear as possible we should be able to reduce this risk.
Both: source:designation= and suspected:designation= both good ideas - thanks. Richard, thanks for the reply, in particular drawing attention to the 3 cases of a suspected/missing/unknown/etc.. right of way. Please see my comments below and let me know what you think: On 11 May 2012 10:07, Robert Whittaker <robert.whitta...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 (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? > > --> I get your point about the 2 different cases. However as you are likely aware any way that is not on the Def Map & Statement by 2026 will no longer be a public right of way. As such there is value to checking both cases with equal priority. Essentially my hope with the suspected tag, is that if allows mappers to indicate when they think a way might be or perhaps should be a public right of way. This can then be followed up (perhaps even by a different contributor) to check whether it is on the Def Statement and if not to request it be added. The progress during this stage can be added in the note=* tag. If we can get a few missing ways added to the Def Statement we can put out a positive news article. > 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. > > --> My concern with the fixme tag is that it is used for 1000s of other reasons. With designation:suspected=* it makes it very easy to filter the map database. > 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. > > --> For unknown classifications you can use the generic designation:suspected=row. As noted this subjective data would then allow someone who is happy to contact the local council, to easily identify suspected missing rights of way and bring this to the councils attention. Perhaps designation=unrecorded can be used if and only if you know that the route is not yet on the Def Map, however how do you reduce the risk of it being misused? Once initial contact has been made with the local council this could be added to the 'notes' tag. --> access tags already include access=yes and access=official. To me it looks like there is no difference and I would expect people use access=yes for a lot more cases than just "official, legally-enshrined right of access". How would adding access=customary effect this (whilst not being confused with access=customer)? > (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.) > > --> As above, cannot all 3 cases uses suspected:designation=* and the exact case be documented in notes=*? --> RobJN Any thoughts? > > Robert. > > -- > Robert Whittaker >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
