That's a fair viewpoint and I'm open to changing my method. But what would you suggest in the situation where a PROW runs through a building(s)? Map through it as a fully-fledged footway? Doesn't matter what your abilities are, you won't be able to go through there - well unless you can pass through walls... At what point does a completely inaccessible, or even re-rerouted path (just not in the PROW data), become disused?
I am interested as a path I recently mapped is a PROW but is very dangerous to cross. It is now marked as disused:highway=path with access=discourged;designated but it is stilla PROW (byway open to all traffic in this case): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93427676 -----Original Message----- From: Dave F via Talk-GB <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 2:10 PM To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field On 08/12/2020 12:36, nathan case wrote: > but instead setting as disused:highway. This is what I tend to do when the > PROW route is clearly inaccessible from aerial imagery (e.g. due to new > buildings, or rivers). IMO, this is bad mapping. Just because one person concludes it isn't used by staring at photograph taken thousands of feet in the air doesn't mean it isn't. Accessibility is variable & subjective. What might be a deterrent to a wheelchair user, could be considered easy by a high jumper. Even if it is found to be inaccessible after an on ground survey it doesn't mean it's been declared disused. DaveF _______________________________________________ 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
