To have a priority (for example on a junction or crossing)
To be allowed to traverse a way
While it’s understandable for me from context that meaning 2 is used, it still may create some confusion. I’m in a long changeset discussion just because of it. Shouldn’t we avoid phrases which have a double meaning?
English is not my native language, so maybe I understand something wrong or this is some kind of American vs British English issue.
If my concern is valid, maybe someone could come up with a better alternative and edit the article?
While this would be ideal, English is absolutely full of words and phrases that mean different things in different contexts. It’s rather unavoidable. In this case, the two meanings of “right of way” you mention share the same basic meaning, but yes there is a slight distinction.
I must disagree. The distinction is not a slight one and leads to different understanding which affect mapping. Concrete example I’ve encountered: bicycle crossing where bicycles are allowed to move, but don’t have priority.
And it’s probably very much avoidable.
For example from the wiki article:
bicycle=yes - The public has a right of way when travelling on a bicycle.
The public is allowed to travel on a bicycle.
The other two places may be a little more complex and either too require rephrasing or a reference to definition.
The distinction is that meaning 1 is generally always phrased as “having the right of way” while meaning 2 is generally always phrased as “being a right of way”. So:
This foot path across private property is a public right of way
This means the public’s right to use this foot path takes priority over the landowner’s right to limit access across their property.
Pedestrians have the right of way at this crossing
This means a pedestrian’s right to cross the street takes priority over a motorist’s right to continue driving, so their paths converge.
Both meaning’s are about priority in a sense. One in the moment, and one in general.
For crossings that bicycles are allowed to use but don’t necessarily have priority I would rephrase this:
bicycle=yes - The public has a right of way when travelling on a bicycle.
As this:
bicycle=yes - Riding a bicycle through this crossing is allowed for the general public.
“The public has a right of way” sounds weird and is ambiguous. Something either “is a right of way” or someone “has the right of way”. Mixing the two is confusing and unclear.
Good point, but it maybe too nuanced to a non-native speaker.
It can probably be argued that if there is a right, then someone must have it. Even though in case of access it’s usually used in the context of what it’s applied to, not who has it.
But at least we discovered that one use of this phrase is clear ambiguous.
Since we’d like to target people with different native languages, we shouldn’t leave this phrase as is.
No we should not because in this case the phrase “a right of way” is being used where normally one would say “the right of way” instead. But I do not think that is what is meant. It could be rephrased as “The crossing is a legal right of way for cyclists”, but that’s unnecessarily complex compared to “bicycles are allowed”.
Just to clarify, there are no sentences about crossings and right of way.
You can check all instances of this phrase in article with Ctrl+F and maybe suggest what to do. The bicycle crossing was an example of misunderstanding I’ve had with another mapper, which was brought up to demonstrate that the difference between definitions does play a role.
Oh my mistake. I see this is just a general definition of bicycle=yes:
bicycle=yes - The public has a right of way when travelling on a bicycle.
Since it’s not specifically about a crossing or junction I suppose it is technically clear, but it is rather legalistic phrasing and I see the potential for confusion. I would rephrase as:
bicycle=yes - Riding a bicycle is allowed for the general public
The problem here is that distinction with bicycle=permissive becomes lost (and it matters for example in UK)
Maybe Key:access - OpenStreetMap Wiki should make clear that when RoW is mentioned the second meaning is meant, and is not about having priority? By adding some note/clarification?