If it's truly "open access land" then it's not permissive, it's merely foot=yes, surely?
Dan Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 13:20 schreef Michael Collinson <m...@ayeltd.biz>: > > Perhaps there should be a access/foot=open_access tag? > > Paths across open access areas aren't really "permissive". First, you > usually have some rights to wander off the path/make your own. Second, > there is (always?) some sort of regulatory/public right involved, it > isn't just dependent on the largesse of a landowner. > > In my area of Yorkshire, there are a number of open access areas where > unofficial paths have evolved over recent years. I have mapped these as > foot=yes, but that misses the extra right-to-roam dimension. > > Mike > > On 2020-07-11 12:57, Philip Barnes wrote: > > On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 11:51 +0100, Nick wrote: > >> That would be great, bearing in mind access rights differ (e.g. > >> Scotland > >> and England). > > Not just England, Wales too. > > > > Phil (trigpoint) > > > >> A really interesting point regarding temporary land-use (forestry, > >> farming etc.) restrictions - ideal if it was dynamic to ensure that > >> it > >> is always updated (otherwise users woiuld ignore). It would > >> certainly > >> help land managers and users. Imagine if this was in place for Covid > >> restrictions. > >> > >> Nick > >> > >> On 11/07/2020 11:37, Dan S wrote: > >>> Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary > >>> guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate > >>> consensus? It would be super helpful > >>> > >>> Dan > >>> > >>> Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg > >>> <nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>: > >>>> .. to follow that up, a good example where I have used > >>>> foot=permissive en-masse 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 > >>>> permissive path' notice. > >>>> > >>>> Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to > >>>> forestry operations. > >>>> > >>>> Nick > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> From: Nick Whitelegg <nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> > >>>> Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11 > >>>> To: Talk GB <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> > >>>> 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 rights of way but which > >>>> nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 'Private' or > >>>> 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the > >>>> landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public > >>>> use. > >>>> > >>>> I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain > >>>> 'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It > >>>> might have public or permissive use. It might be private. At the > >>>> moment we don't know'. > >>>> > >>>> I tend to use: > >>>> designation for rights of way; > >>>> foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive > >>>> paths; > >>>> foot=yes for urban paths; > >>>> access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' > >>>> sign. > >>>> > >>>> Nick > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> From: Adam Snape <adam.c.sn...@gmail.com> > >>>> Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20 > >>>> To: Talk GB <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> > >>>> 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 I > >>>> can't see any particular reason to remove it and, indeed, there > >>>> might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to > >>>> an implied value. > >>>> > >>>> OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat > >>>> for the end user that a way might be closed. I only add it where > >>>> a route is explicitly stated to be permissive on the ground, is > >>>> actually known or likely to be shut from time to time, or is > >>>> clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and housing > >>>> estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and > >>>> about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways. > >>>> > >>>> Kind regards, > >>>> > >>>> Adam > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Talk-GB mailing list > >>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Talk-GB mailing list > >>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Talk-GB mailing list > >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-GB mailing list > > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
