Changeset: 49995393
added Bewdley details
Closed by Martin Wynne
Tags
created_by | iD 2.2.2 |
---|---|
host | http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit |
imagery_used | OS OpenData StreetView;NLS - OS 1:25k 1st Series 1937-61;DigitalGlobe Premium Imagery |
locale | en-GB |
Discussion
-
Comment from Mike Baggaley
Hi, on ways 504628768 and 504628767 which are tagged as highway=footway (i.e. only pedestrian access is expected to be allowed), you have included access=private and foot=yes giving rise to confusion as to whether you meant the foot access to be private or allowed. It should not be necessary to set the access value on a footway, just the foot one (unless some other form of transport is actually allowed). Can you confirm whether pedestrian access is allowed?
Thanks,
Mike -
Comment from Martin Wynne
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your message. This is Forestry Commision land, which means that under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 it is "Access Land" with the right to roam on foot anywhere except within 20 metres of a dwelling (unless on a public right of way). The distinction between an historic public right of way and the right to roam is a bit of a grey area. However, these paths are not marked as public rights of way on the OS maps.
These are narrow muddy foot paths through the heart of the forest, so not suitable for any other means of transport except perhaps mountain bikes. The Forestry Commission have laid out mountain bike trails elsewhere in Ribbesford Woods, I'm not sure if they allow bikes to go anywhere.
I have changed the access for bikes to permissive, I hope that's ok?
cheers,
Martin.
-
Comment from Mike Baggaley
HI Martin, I wasn't questioning whether bikes have access, I was asking about the foot access because the combination of access=private and foot=yes on a footway gives rise to confusion as to whether the foot access is allowed or private (because although the foot tag overrides the access one, not all taggers realise that, and often set access=no when a path is closed, leaving foot=yes (i.e. the access=no has no effect). I suggest deleting access, horse and motor_vehicle, leaving just foot, highway and surface. If you don't know whether bicycles have access, then I would also delete the bicycle tag.
Best wishes,
Mike -
Comment from Martin Wynne
Hi Mike,
You have rather lost me. The land is private, owned by the Forestry Commission. There is no public right of way on these footpaths. There are on Access Land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. That means the landowner can under certain circumstances temporarily close the area (for example if tree felling is taking place), or modify the route, or eliminate them as physical paths entirely provided access to the land remains.
On the other hand, if they were public rights of way, in order to temporarily close them the County Council would need to make and publish a legal Traffic Order to that effect, and it would be possible to object to it.Are you planning to walk them? It is about 12 months since I last visited the area, but it is only a couple of miles from home so I could go and check the current status for you?
I will try to find out the exact position on mountain bike access in Ribbesford Woods and modify the OSM settings accordingly.
cheers,
Martin.
-
Comment from Mike Baggaley
Sorry to have confused you. I'm not planning to walk them (at least at present) - I build my own Garmin GB map from OSM data, and my build process flagged up a warning on these ways about conflicting access tags. If you put access=private on a footway, that means the path cannot be used by the general public. If you put foot=yes on a path, it means the path can be used for walking by the general public. For a footway there is normally no other transport allowed so if both are specified it is unclear which the mapper meant to apply. Hence my suggestion of removing all the access tags other than foot.
Does that seem any clearer?
Mike -
Comment from Martin Wynne
Hi Mike,
In the iD editor, when you set some things, other things change automatically. I don't recall setting access=private or highway=footway. I selected "Foot Path" from the menu, and set foot=yes (the need to do that for a foot path is not clear to me).
Whatever, it is not showing access=private now. Did you change it?
What is the proper way to show a footpath which is not a public right of way but which crosses Access Land?cheers,
Martin.
-
Comment from Martin Wynne
p.s. Mike,
According to the Wiki, yes="The public has an official, legally-enshrined right of access; i.e., it's a right of way."
These paths are not public rights of way. The public have a right of access to the land they cross, subject to certain conditions. But the actual route or existence of a path has no legal protection.
cheers, Martin.
Ways (17)
- 504628763, v1
- 504628764, v1
- 504628765, v1
- 504628766, v1
- 504628767, v1
- 504628768, v1
- 504628769, v1
- 504625864, v2
- 504625102, v2
- 133542173, v15
- 132049788, v5
- Ribbesford House (504622816), v2
- 504625098, v3
- 132049752, v6
- Heightington Road (132049742), v2
- 132049749, v2
132049753, v2
Relations (1)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |