Questions on mapping local policy on cycling through parks

[agilenewt21]

Hi. I’m trying to gradually get the cycle access permissions right for paths through parks and open spaces in my local town. There’s been a recent effort over the last few years to upgrade some of these paths as shared “park connectors” for active travel and I’d like OSM to reflect that if possible.

A borough council officer for parks and open spaces has verbally assured me that cycling is encouraged in those council run spaces. Which paths are appropriate is left to personal judgement. There’s nothing on the ground indicating this policy, nor on the council’s parks and open spaces webpage.

Can these be marked as highway=path|footway bicycle=yes|permissive?
Can some be marked as as highway=cycleway foot=yes bicycle=yes|permissive if they look enough like cycleway and provide connections in a broader network (like the park connector network is intended for)? (Some local disused railway routes are already marked like this)
What would a suggested source tag be in this case?
Is permissiveness/legality of cycling in parks a default across the UK that’s passed me by?
On a recent edit I made on a resurvey of one of these connector paths I set the operator to the title of the council department. Is this sensible?

Some of these paths form part of the borough’s strategic cycle network and (depending on legality of using the LCWIP map and the local printed/PDF active travel map as OSM sources) there’s evidence of the permissive intent of the involved local authorities that’s not always reflected explicitly on the ground - but is still useful information.

[eteb3]

@agilenewt21

Can these be marked as highway=path|footway bicycle=yes|permissive?
Can some be marked as as highway=cycleway foot=yes bicycle=yes|permissive if they look enough like cycleway and provide connections in a broader network (like the park connector network is intended for)? (Some local disused railway routes are already marked like this)
What would a suggested source tag be in this case?

‘Yes’ generally means ‘has legal right’. ‘Permissive’ has a legal meaning for local councils, in that the landowner has given express permission (which may be withdrawn at any time). Since a tutorial by SK53 as a rookie that’s not how I’ve understood it to be used on the map and not how I use it.

Personally I think it’s ok to go on the ‘feels’ on this one: ‘permissive’ on the map might be better expressed as ‘no one minds’, and so it can’t be source-referenced as objectively as other tags: for me “local knowledge” would do just fine [edit: and maybe put a note of your conversation with the officer in the notes field or the changeset comment]. Of course, if there are signs prohibiting cycling that would usually go against, but if there are no signs at all, either yea or nay, that’s how I judge it.

@agilenewt21

Is permissiveness/legality of cycling in parks a default across the UK that’s passed me by?

I don’t think so.

@agilenewt21

On a recent edit I made on a resurvey of one of these connector paths I set the operator to the title of the council department. Is this sensible?

I’d say so. Sorry, I missed ‘department’. I’d say operator=name of council.

@agilenewt21

Some of these paths form part of the borough’s strategic cycle network and (depending on legality of using the LCWIP map and the local printed/PDF active travel map as OSM sources) there’s evidence of the permissive intent of the involved local authorities that’s not always reflected explicitly on the ground - but is still useful information.

I agree - and if you have that info, in principle you could (imo) cite that as a source. The council map is a sticky question tho: almost always they produce it from their OS-based GIS. (Happily a new Peterborough map seems to be OSM-based - reminds me to email the council officer and check.)