Talk:Organised Editing/Activities/National Trust Paths

Default BOAT Access

This currently has "vehicle=yes; motor_vehicle=no" when I suspect that you meant "vehicle=yes; motor_vehicle=yes". I'm guessing it's a copy and paste error from the previous line? SomeoneElse (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Now fixed, thanks! SomeoneElse (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, my mistake. Thanks for picking up on this. AJW92 (talk)

"Legal RoW but access discouraged"

Who discourages access and in what way? And access=private seems completely wrong for this case, while access=discouraged should be used "Only if marked by a traffic sign" (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access that gives https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Carnotrec.jpg as an example of explicit sign) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the feedback. It's clear we didn't provide enough information and examples so we've separated this out into a new section. This case was raised by local property teams where paths over open access land have temporary signs recommending use of other routes, usually for foot erosion control, however, paths are still accessible (there's no obstruction at the start of the path such as a gate/fence etc.). We've asked the property team for an example of the signage which we'll publish to the wiki. We agree that access=private is wrong for foot, horse and bicycle in this case but we believe it could be valid for vehicle and motor_vehicle e.g. for maintenance vehicles only. We've also noted comments that using access=discouraged is too subjective and is rarely used. We're looking into alternatives that we'll suggest these to the community soon. Hope this makes sense, please let me know if anything is unclear. AJW92 (talk)

This section stills says "Due to lack of use, discouraged will now be listed as =no." which is incorrect. Legal rights of way for e.g. foot access should be foot=yes. A designation tag can help people understand what the acope of the ROW is. If a land manager wants to discourage access (e.g. to a dangerous path across access land) they would be expected to clearly sign it on the ground - disused:highway=footway may be appropriate in those case. SomeoneElse (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for flagging this. This section of the page was last updated some time ago and has now been amended to reflect the approach used. As mentioned on the page, permissive ways have been tagged with =no where the usage is discouraged. This does not apply to legal RoW, where access is designated.

In cases where we wish to discourage users, but access is designated (ie. on rights of way), a comment has been left in the 'description' field (eg. 'conservation / restoration along this way'), but the access permissions have been tagged with =designated for the appropriate mode of transport. We hope that this will make users aware of safety risks / concerns, without actively discouraging legal rights of way.

The disused:highway=* tag has also been used in some instances where paths are visible in satellite photos but closed/discouraged on the ground. This is with the aim of preventing these ways from being remapped.

Olivia.ragone (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

=permitted

"permitted" appears to be unclear, undefined and with the same meaning as access=yes. Maybe access=permit would be better? See Proposed features/access=permit Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up on this, we agree access=permit works better here. As with access=discouraged above, we've noted access=permit is rarely used. AJW92 (talk)

Mailing list discussion

Note that there is also substantial and ongoing discussion on Talk-GB mailing list with an useful feedback Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

clarification of the term 'standard'

Frederick Ramm points out on the mailing list: "It must be clear to everyone involved that ultimate authority over what gets mapped and how does not lie with the National Trust, and neither does OSMUK have a mandate to enter into agreements on behalf of the OSM community that would determine exactly which ways may be mapped, and what tags to use."

It might be worth rewording so that it is clear that the 'standard' is simply guidance for NT staff to do mapping consistently, and not an enforceable standard for all OSM objects in NT areas. Maybe it called be renamed "guidance"? Jnicho02 (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I've updated the project background, proposal and tagging schema sections which hopefully provides more clarity on our approach. We also really appreciate Frederick's input, the points/feedback raised on our approach more generally are very useful and have helped guide discussions in the team. Hoping to follow up with this at SoTM. AJW92 (talk)

Oh, and welcome! :)

There may be some robust discussion over the meaning of terms, motivations, or hypothetical situations, but... we are really very pleased to have the National Trust's involvement. Welcome! Jnicho02 (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Closed routes (e.g. for safety)

When a Public Right of Way is either closed or diverted (e.g. for safety) reasons, you're currently tagging, for example, as highway=footway, foot=no and designation=public_footpath. This is a little awkward as access tags are legal restrictions rather than usability restrictions.

Although the GB OSM community hasn't reached a consensus on how to tag such cases, we seem to instead change the highway tag (see here) since the legal status of the route hasn't changed.

Just wondering what the rationale is behind your choice and whether this was discussed? Maybe yours is the right approach but probably worth discussing. Thanks. Casey boy (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment: Changes were made following discussions with staff on the ground and following the guidance on tagging Public Rights of Way (see here).--AWMapper (talk) 11:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, you linked to the wrong section of that guidance. The correct section is here which says "There is no consensus on how to do this but options include highway=no, disused:highway=*, or simply not adding the highway=* tag at all." So was just wondering if you'd consulted on using a different approach and what impacts there might be because of this. Casey boy (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Values=no

The Tagging Guidelines table needs amending* to make it clear that values equating to 'no' are not required as the legal status of the ways defines which transport modes can access them. ie highway=public_bridleway, motor_vehicle=no is superfluous.

_* Actually I think it needs removing & references to the existing PROW/bridle/tracks pages added. --DaveF63 (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for providing feedback on our tagging of paths. We are always open to constructive feedback that helps us to add value to OSM and would like to ensure our work is of benefit to all.

The aim of our project is to capture and accurately tag the access rights of all paths on or near National Trust managed land. In doing so, we hope to use it as the basis for enhancing access and the management of paths, to improve visitor experience. We are trying to be consistent in how ways are tagged / represented in OpenStreetMap. A standard schema and internally developed guidance are being utilised to help map commonly occurring scenarios.

During the mapping process, we have come across a number of rights of way where the legal status does not fully cover the access rights associated with the way. For example, ways #215265531, #1164446878, #296113568 and #75029779. These public footpaths also have permissive access for bicycles and horses, as well as private access for motor vehicles. As the legal status of the way does not fully reflect the access rights for all modes of transport (foot / bicycles / horse / motor vehicles), it was felt that leaving the tags blank on the basis that the legal status is implied would not be appropriate. We hope that by explicitly tagging ways where the value equates to ‘=no’, it will avoid confusion with ways where tags have been left blank as the access rights are unknown.

We are also mindful that some visitors using paths on National Trust land will be unfamiliar with the access rights associated with public rights of way. By choosing to explicitly state access=no, we hope that we can encourage visitors to use our paths, regardless of their prior knowledge and experience with the legal status of rights of way in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Overall, we are seeking to tag all rights of way and permissive routes with the highway, foot, bike, horse and motor vehicle access tags for clarity and inclusivity, but we are keen to hear from other members of the OSM community, should this be a mutual feeling that other users possess. We are aware of the wealth of knowledge and experience in the OSM community and are open to discussion on this topic.

-- National Trust Paths & Trails Team.

-- 14:46, 6 June 2023 (GMT)

In addition to the above, there are edge cases in the data where something that is a public road is also e.g. a public bridleway. See the wide variety of designation combinations in East Anglia for examples. SomeoneElse (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)