Thanks. I'll go back and have a closer look. It was part of a long ride so I didn't do much checking at the time.
Mark On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 12:30 Dave F via Talk-GB, <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > On 08/12/2020 09:36, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote: > > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway ( > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the > > WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to > have > > been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I > can't > > see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete > > track, however, there is a locked gate across that track (which I've also > > just now added). What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no > physical > > evidence and no rerouting such as along a field boundary such as I've > seen > > in other cases on OSM. > > Welcome to OSM. > > If I come across a non obvious path I attempt to look around for a worn > way, especially through boundaries. Aerial imagery suggests the edge of > the field is used. Please check on the ground first to confirm it's > still used. > http://osmz.ru/imagery/#20/51.12946/-1.79511/bing > > I would mark the way as the definitive map alignment & add a note > describing the direction that's actually used. > > It may be words in a book, but definitive statements are physical evidence. > > As the access tag is to describe legal use, I'd remove it in this case. > > Both bicycle & walking on a bridleway are designated. > > The surface tag is a useful addition for paths. > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface > > > Dave F > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
