On Sat, 21 Nov 2020, 15:39 Tony Shield, <tonyo...@gmail.com> wrote: > 'yes' is probably wrong as there is no obvious permission and in England > and Wales Highways Act 1835 s72 'If any person shall wilfully ride upon any > footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use > or accommodation of foot passengers;' . . .a penalty. So in the absence of > any evidence - no bicycles. >
The key part of this gloriously archaic statute (which predates the invention of the bicycle*) is "by the side of any road" ie. it concerns paths which we would now refer to as or sidewalks. There is no general law against riding bicycles elsewhere including any other kind of footpaths. Which is not to say it is not in cases irresponsible or antisocial. It is also potentially a civil trespass against the landowner to ride a bike where not permitted. But, on the other hand, as Tony notes, such usage can be harmless and become customary. If such customary usage is maintained for long enough it can even become a legal right which is how we have ended up with rights of way. Thus, at least in the legal sense the absence of explicitly allowed (bicycle=yes/designated) does not mean forbidden (bicycle=no). That might be a good assumption for routers to make but personally I'd only add bicycle=no where there was an explicit prohibition. *original version here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/LXXII/enacted
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
