Help sought to edit a footpath shown as a cyclepath - UK

I’m pretty new to mapping - so far I’ve edited surface information. Apologies in advance for my raw green-ness :slight_smile:

I’m seeking help regarding problems with a footpath local to me that is incorrectly shown in OSM to be a bridleway, and on the OSM cycling layer as being part of National Cycle Route 63. I’ll check out whether its a footpath or bridleway on the county definitive map and edit if needed.

Hopefully this will show it:

So, my questions:

  1. In the browser editor I’m using, the Allowed Access field has rows that are set as:
    All Yes
    Foot Designated
    Motor vehicles No
    Bicycles Not specified
    Horses. Designated

I’ve searched and have not been able to find out what setting the All row to Yes actually means. Could somebody please point me in the right direction?

  1. According to the Sustrans map, the path is not part of the NCR 63. In OSM a Relation has been defined that states it is part of NCR 63, but proposed. I used a route finding website that directed me down this path, but on the ground I was confronted by locked gates and an unhappy farmer. Somebody has taken the time and trouble to set that up and rather than just remove the relation, is it possible to query it with whoever set it up please?



Interesting - the “all=yes” tag appears not to be present in the data, but is being inferred (perhaps in error) by the iD editor. I’ve not seen it before but a new version of iD has been made public recently.

The actual tags in the data can be seen at . What these mean is as follows:


It’s signed as a “public bridleway”. This means that there is legal access on foot, on horseback, and on bicycle in addition to whatever other legal access rights there might be. The “definitive map” often isn’t licence-compatible with OSM as it may include OS data, but the “definitive statement” usually will be. Most public bridleways are mapped as such by people just reading the “public bridleway” sign at each end.


“foot=designated” were used before “designation” tagging was widely used in England and Wales. These days I’d interpret it no stronger than “foot=yes” - i.e. you are allowed to walk down here.


The highway “looks” like a bridleway (or at least more like it than a footway (footpath), or cycleway. Before designation tagging was widely used people sometimes used “highway=bridleway” to say “this is a public bridleway”, but now I’d use the “designation” tag for that.


The surface is concrete.

In iD you can see the actual tags by scrolling down the left-hand side to where it says “all tags”. If you think it’s actually a “public_footpath” rather than a “public bridleway” then change the “designation” tag to “public_footpath”. If you think that bicycle access is allowed I’d add “bicycle=yes” as a tag as well.

According to the data I don’t think that it is actually part of NCN 63 yet. Someone has added it to that relation with a role of “proposed” (see for the full relation details). Whilst a human can understand that clearly whatever route finding website you were using cannot; but hopefully once the implicit cycle access that comes from the removal of either designation=public_bridleway or
highway=bridleway it may become unrouteable to bicycles. Which site was it by the way?

By the way, I wouldn’t trust Sustrans’ maps as being definitive of their network. The routes west of Derby were changed on their maps to match what OSM had since their maps were previously wrong there :slight_smile:

Thanks for your comprehensive reply. I’ll check the definitive statement as well as the map and edit accordingly.

The routing website was

Looks to be path SD43/99/1 Swadlincote 43 (data from rowmaps) and, as you say, a public footpath rather than a bridleway.

The path was added about 8 years ago by someone who worked in Burton at the time & who is also a Sustrans ranger. I can only assume that something has changed in accessibility in the interim time.

It would be useful to change the designation tag to public_footpath as you know the area. In addition adding any of the barriers which you have seen (e.g., the locked gate, but not the angry farmer), particularly those designed for pedestrian access (small gates, kissing gates & stiles) would help clarify the information.

Entirely mea culpa on this one. I surveyed it (as SK53 says, a long time ago!) and was sure it was a bridleway, but evidently not so. I’ve changed it to footpath.

I believe this was the proposed route for NCN 63 at the time, but NCN 63 is a bit… compromised round there, and I suspect due for updating in the light of the golf-course development off William Nadin Way. So I’ve removed the path from the NCN 63 relation. TBH I’m not sure it is actually possible to have an NCN-standard route between Burton and Swadlincote without major investment in infrastructure, but that’s by the by!