On 11/08/14 10:33, Dave F. wrote:
On 05/08/2014 15:00, Curon Davies wrote:
On 5 August 2014 14:25, Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com
<mailto:dave...@madasafish.com>> wrote:
>
> One reason I haven't added it is because it's illegal (AFAIK. The
owners of the land & local councillor failed to reply to my tweets) &
definitely has no planning permission.
The development isn't illegal, there is no criminal offence (AFAIK),
on the other hand it is unlawful.
a) Semantics
b) Isn't there a statute law which says 'you can't build or open a road
without authorisation'?
It seems to me that this is being driven by one particular application
of the map, motor vehicle routing.
The road exists. It is possible to get permission to use it if you are
under 3.5T. Therefore I would say that something like this is valid:
highway=unclassified; motor_vehicles=yes/permissive; hgv=no; fee=yes is
necessary.
If that results in routing applications using it in a way that voids
insurance, maybe add something like mib_approved=no.
Buildings certainly should still be mapped, even if they don't have
planning permission (four years for construction and 10 for use are more
permanent than most shop tenancies).
Settlements should be mapped, even if some other country disputes their
legality.
More generally, though, it is dangerous for something like OSM to claim
authority on the legal status of any object. Locally, you put yourself
at risk of being sued when you turn out to be wrong. Internationally,
it increases the pressure to ban it from countries involved with border
disputes.
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
