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)
"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)
"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)