New to all this, and hoping someone can help me sort a problem.
A road is showing as open for motor traffic, whereas only the two sections of around one mile at either end of the road are open for motor traffic; the central section deteriorates into a track and this section is actually legally closed for normal motor traffic (a ‘restricted byway’ in UK). I wish to show the central section as closed to motor traffic so that among other things, car sat nav problems don’t happen. The whole road/track has a relation in that it is the boundary of a national park, which seems to cause a complication in editing it.
I’ve tried just clicking on each node on the central section and editing the section to be a bridleway, but this just shows up as well as the motor road, so presumably the motor road is still present ‘under’ the bridleway.
Can someone tell me how to edit the central section of the road so that it shows as not open to motor traffic?
Also, is it possible to select a section of road with many nodes for editing without having to click on each node in turn?
New to all this, and hoping someone can help me sort a problem.
You should be able to click on the nodes at the transition points where motor vehicles are no longer allowed and split the way. The part in the middle that is restricted would then get the revised tagging.
Are you sure that the road is only half in the park? The boundary may not really be the road centre line, although it might be difficult to establish this on the ground.
Thanks, managed it to fix it now. I thought the easiest way of doing it was to delete the existing road section, leaving my bridleway (following the same nodes) as the remaining route. However, the relation with the national park boundary meant it wasn’t possible to delete the road. So I made a relation between my bridleway and the national park boundary so as to keep the national park boundary intact (not sure if I actually needed to do this), then split the road, isolating the section I wanted to alter, deleted the relation of that section of the original road to the boundary, which then let me delete the original road section.
Splitting the way worked fine - just need care in determining what I was splitting, with the bridleway, original road, and park boundary all following the same nodes.
All sorted. Thanks again.
Glad it’s sorted. If it’s this one that you’re talking about: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/310998729 , if it’s sign as a “restricted bridleway” or “public footpath”, then you can add that to the map too using a “designation” tag. To the west you can see http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/310998731/ which is signed as a public bridleway and has a “designation=public_bridleway” tag. You can see tags such as that in the iD editor at the bottom left.
It’s a while (maybe a year or so) since I’ve been to that area, and it’s great to have someone more local contributing (a few of the other regular mappers there seem to be from over to the east too).
Yes I’m local to my edits, and I’ve been editing some features around the area. Got into this just recently when I downloaded onto my phone the satnav app Navmii which uses OSM for its data (not really into the satnav thing but car co-pilot sometimes gets stressed navigating with maps. I love them). Tried the satnav locally in the car to see how it went on roads that I knew, and the first thing it did was to try to send me down a narrow path about 200 metres from our house, which was designated wrongly as being a road for vehicles. Thought I should correct this on the map, and then saw quite a few things locally that needed correcting/updating/adding.
The road in question is around a mile to the south of the one you highlighted - it’s called Over Hill Road (aka Oven Hill Road) - I don’t know how to highlight it and send you a link, but it’s easy to find if you are interested. The central section is a restricted byway - I ended up designating it as a track with access only by foot, cycle and horse. I just added a tag - ‘designation - restricted byway’. As vehicles are only allowed on these routes for access to land (eg farmers), and most of them round here are very rough, I thought it right to state the access for vehicles as ‘no’, to hopefully prevent car drivers being directed up such tracks. Would the tag alone do this?
If you could have a look at that edit, and maybe some others I’ve made locally, I would appreciate any comments regarding if they are OK, and suggest any improvements I might make in future. I was really a bit hesitant about editing (still am), not wanting to mess things up while I’m learning.
Sure - I’ll have a look (might be Monday before I get a chance to though, unfortunately). I’ll probably get in touch via a changeset discussion comment.
Thanks SomeoneElse - no rush - please let me know how I will find the discussion comment. I noticed just now on the map (not in edit mode) all my path additions have a series of pink blobs on them (unlike existing paths). Is this because they are new and need approving, or have I messed up something? They look the same in edit mode on the satellite map.
I’ll have a good read of the wiki on how to edit OSM, so I don’t keep having to ask questions like this.
Thanks again for your help.
Are my pink blobs (see previous) anything to with the access keys I’ve entered? For public footpaths I’ve been entering - ‘access all’ - ‘no’, then ‘foot’ - ‘yes’, and ‘no’ to all the rest (cycles, horse etc).
This seems to automatically put a tag on it reading - ‘access no’ and also ‘foot - yes’. Is this correct (‘access no’ seems to indicate no public access), or should I be putting something else in instead of entering ‘access all’ - ‘no’?
There seem to be several ways that other mappers have entered keys for public footpaths.
The red/pink blobs, on the standard rendering, mean the way is private and will result from access=no.
The standard rendering is not particularly suited to walkers, as, if the feature is basically a private vehicle road, it will show the private status and a vehicle road symbol, rather than a footpath.
In urban settings, you can get round this by using highway=pedestrian (such ways tend to have limited access to vehicles, especially out of hours), but I doubt that would be accepted in a rural context.
True foot paths are not a problem, you simply code them as highway=foot.
In my view, mapping a vehicle road then giving less vehicle access than its default access would be wrong, but others may disagree. Whilst, in this case, it may be that foot traffic is more common than vehicle traffic, there are many cases of private roads, in which, at best, vehicle traffic is restricted to those requiring a destination on the road, or may even require explicit permission, which are public rights of way on foot, but vehicle traffic is at least as common as public foot traffic. Marking them as access=yes, motor_vehicle=no could encourage trespass by drivers using rendered maps.
Incidentally, for urban parks, the actual status of most foot routes is foot=permissive, as they are not legally rights of way. I’m not sure if the same applies to national parks. The marker for permissive is green blobs.
My guess is that the example from the wiki <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access> access=forestry,foot=permissive may actually be the correct description in this case, but that isn’t something that I can verify remotely. This may well remove the red blobs, as the the renderer won’t know what to do with forestry, but you should not tag simply to achieve that.
PS. As this is Kinder Scout, and I think that is sheep country and dry stone walls, rather than forest, forestry will be wrong.
Thanks for the info.
I think my confusion is mainly with the ‘allowed access’ ‘all’ entry - and whether it should be ‘yes’ or ‘designated’, or left as ‘not specified’
Does ‘yes’ here mean that access for all modes of transport are allowed? The wording ‘all’ would seem to indicate this, but then again you can subsequently enter ‘motor vehicle=no’. Would the ‘motor vehicle=no’ override the ‘allowed access’ ‘all=yes’ entry? Is it possible that a satnav programme could pick up the ‘allowed access all=yes’ as a route open to all traffic including motor traffic?
Maybe ‘allowed access’ ‘all= designated’ should be used, but the wiki gives examples of routes where this is used for various methods of transport (eg for cycles, horse etc), but doesn’t say if it should be used in the ‘allowed access’ ‘all’ field.
Would this be correct for a public footpath:- ‘allowed access’ ‘all=designated’ then ‘foot=designated’ (or foot=yes?), and then ‘no’ to the rest? Tag highway=footway, designation=public_footpath? Or should it be ‘allowed access’ ‘all=yes’, then ‘foot=designated’ …etc.
I’ve looked at existing codings for footpaths (ie public footpaths) in the area. Most of them seem to be - feature=‘footpath’, access all=not specified, foot=yes, motor vehicles, cycles, horses= no. Tags - access as above, also highway=footway, and designation=public_footpath. Is that correct? The ‘access all=not specified’ seems a poor way of doing things, but maybe a sign that this is not well understood.
For a track which is a restricted byway (ie foot, horse, and cycle legally allowed, but motor vehicles only allowed for access to land -ie farmers, landowners):- some people have been using this:- Feature=track, leaving the ‘allowed access’ ‘all=not specified’, then foot, horse, cycle= yes, motor vehicles=no, and then in the key adding designation= restricted_byway. ‘Allowed access’ ‘all=designated’ might not be appropriate, as such a route is not specifically designed for a particular transport mode. If ‘allowed access’ ‘all=yes’ might allow satnavs to take vehicles up the route, then maybe leaving ‘allowed access’ ‘all=not specified’ would be best, and entering motor vehicle=no. Vehicle=destination might be appropriate, though the wiki says this means ‘local traffic only’ which isn’t what a restricted byway means.
The wiki indicates that a bridleway should be shown as horse=designated, foot=yes, cycle=yes. highway=path. Again, should the ‘access’ ‘all’ entry be ‘designated’ or ‘yes’. However many bridleways are wide enough to be called tracks, and wouldn’t be accurately described as a path. ??
Regarding hadw’s point about footpaths in national parks, unless they are indicated as rights of way, or are specified as permissive, I suppose they are private - the national park status in itself doesn’t mean anything as far as access is concerned, although there is sometimes de facto access (how to code this?). However, there are now large areas of public access land in national parks and other places (since the CROW legislation), and I would think it right to show paths wholly in these areas as per a public footpath, as public foot access to the whole area is now enshrined in law.
Yes, hadw, not many trees on Kinder. Lots of bog.
Thanks again, and any clarification welcomed, and I’ll correct my previous additions.
A more specific type of transport always overrides a more general.
So access=no, bicycle=yes. Means that there is no access, but bicycles are allowed.
Another example vehicle=destination, bicycle=yes means that the road can only be accessed when your destination is there, but bicycles can access it for any reason.
By default the access of a road is “yes” for all transport modes. On motorways, this default is “no” for cyclist and pedestrians. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions for the defaults in your country. As long as a road follows the default permissions, you should not map the access explicitly.
all=designated is wrong mapping. Designated should only be used in combination with a specific transport mode. I never use in in Belgium except for lane access, e.g. bus:lanes=|designated . This means that the right most lane is designated to buses.
access=yes shouldn’t be used that often AFAIK.
For public footpaths in the UK, please contact the local community. They can properly explain how to tag them. But you can also read https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/41053/prow-tagging-england-wales, perhaps that helps.
Hi Johnthemap - I’ve added a couple of comments to changeset discussions, which hopefully you should get emailed about. If that doesn’t work, let me know and I can link to them explicitly.
SomeoneElse - thanks for the help. I got the emails, thanks, but don’t know best way of replying - ie if you get emailed about my comments.
I’ve put my comments on the changeset discussions. Hopefully you can find a way to edit the Oven Hill/Over Hill road/restricted byway, as I don’t feel confident enough about doing this, although I’ll have bash if need be. Any info on how to do this, regarding the relation with part of the national park boundary, would be good.
On the public footpaths which previously came out showing as private, I’ve edited them - I binned the access field to get rid of the ‘access all=no’ which I’d entered previously and caused the ‘private’ pink blobs to appear, and just had the two keys ‘highway=footway’, and ‘designation=public_footpath’. This seems to automatically adjust the access field to ‘all=not specified’, ‘foot=designated’, ‘motor vehicles=no’, ‘bicycles=not specified’ and ‘horses=not specified’. From what I’ve seen in the wiki help, and from previous mapping, this is as it should be. Didn’t know whether to enter ‘no’ to bicycles and horses, but for the moment will not enter these. Could anyone comment on if this sounds correct, or is it better to actually specify ‘no’ to bicycles and horses.
On restricted byways I’ve left them as a ‘track’, with access ‘all=not specified’ ‘motor vehicles=no’, and ‘yes’ to foot, cycles, and horse. Is this right?
Hopefully I’ll get the hang of things soon.
Yes - when you add a comment to a changeset discussion that I’ve previously added a comment, I get an email. I’ve replied there - hope this all makes sense…
On which changeset is this discussion taking place? My feeling is that you are mapping for the renderer, but I’d like to see the discussion before making a final decision on that.
For the benefit of anyone coming to this discussion later, it’s https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/35882220 and https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/35946251 . It’s a bit convoluted, because there are at least three different things being covered in each discussion, but hopefully if you read it all it’ll be clear.
Escada above has already mentioned https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/41053/prow-tagging-england-wales , and despite the fact that that question, and the question that it was a follow-up to, arose out of a tagging dispute, I think the answers are fairly clear.
‘Mapping for the renderer’? Me? I don’t know what that really means, never mind how to do it, but you make it sound vaguely like an offence. I’m just trying to map accurately. To explain:- OSM was brought to my attention (around a week ago) because a satnav app on my phone, which uses OSM for its data, was trying to send me and my car down a narrow path (which is actually legally a bridleway, but it’s hardly suitable even for a horse). I looked at the OSM map, saw the bridleway was incorrectly mapped as a road open to motor vehicles and thought I’d try to correct it. Then I saw another route (a restricted byway) nearby also incorrectly labelled as a vehicular road so I had a go at that one. And decided to contribute a bit by putting some nice local footpaths on…all of which didn’t quite go to plan, as you can no doubt see from the above. Well, if that’s ‘mapping for the renderer’ then it’s “guilty M’Lud”. Ignorance is no defence, I know.
Seriously, I found the iD editor (the only one I’ve tried, as it is supposed to be the simplest) not very intuitive, even when trying to enter a bog-standard public footpath which I thought might be relatively straightforward, and definitive help tricky to find - hence me coming here for help, and I appreciate the help I’ve been given. But I still can’t say, hand on heart, that I can see a definitive way of entering a standard, no-frills public footpath on the map, but my latest attempts seem to agree with what other mappers have used (assuming they have used the same editor!).
Hi Johnthemap, ignore that “Mapping for the renderer”. It’s a flawed expression used if someone (not SomeoneElse is changing the map and accepting wrong mapping just to improve the appearance in any software. It doesn’t apply to you.
I think the iD editor is a good editor to “draw” things for new mappers in osm. It definitively does not support detailed mapping very good. But to do this you need in any editor a good knowledge of the wiki to add tags manually (lower left table in iD).
Whilst I don’t think I’m going to be sure of the circumstances in your case, a less contentious case of mapping for the renderer would be if a minor and a major named feature would result the name of minor features being used on the OSM standard layer rendering (the map users see when they first visit the web site), and someone deleted the name tag of the minor feature in order for that of the major feature to show. E.g., in the recent thread about the name of the square, deleting the underpass, to reveal the name of the square, or, in the unlikely event that the underpass really was called “underpass”, removing the name tag for the same reason.)
In your case, if this is a a stage coach route which never had motor vehicles as its reason for existence, leaving access untagged and setting motor_vehicles=no is the right thing, but if its main reason for existence as a track is for the movement of motorised farm vehicles, I would argue that it should be allowed to be marked as private on the standard rendering. A track implies four or more wheeled vehicles. If that is not the case, it should probably be a path.
The standard layer isn’t a ramblers map. The cycle layer is more suitable for that.