UK Bridleway Public Right of Way Tagging

Help and support Tagging help & support
1

Looking through “Robert’s OpenStreetMap Stuff” website, UK Public Right of Ways (PROW) seem to be a bit of a mess. Before I start manually updating some tags on existing routes, I want to confirm that my understanding on UK PROW tagging is correct – in particular public bridleways.

My understanding is that all UK public bridleways should contain the below tags. The only exception being bicycle=designated should be bicycle=no if bicycles are explicitly forbidden by a local authority or by-law.

highway     = *
designation = public_bridleway
horse       = designated
foot        = designated
bicycle     = designated
prow_ref    = *

Sources:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_bridleways
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:designation%3Dpublic_bridleway

And also, that even if the public bridleway is not physically suitable for bicycles, it should still be tagged as bicycle=designated, as the tag denotes the public have a legally protected right to access it on a bicycle, rather than whether or not it is actually suitable for bicycles.

“…designated ways are intended to be usable for the designated purpose(s). If real world usability does not match designation the ways should be still tagged as designated with additional tags such as for example smoothness=horrible to describe the real world (un)usability.”

Source:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated

So, when adding missing PROW reference numbers for example, it would make sense to also check the above tags are correct. I.E. a public bridleway should be tagged as foot=designated instead of foot=yes, and tagged as bicycle=designated instead of Bicycles = Not Specified.

Is my understanding correct? And route planners for bicycles should be using smoothness=*, surface=*, tracktype=*, etc. instead to determine suitability?

2

Personally (and note this is very much a personal view), I’d approach tagging these in the following way:

I’d get the highway value right first, so that someone using the route has an idea what to expect. Just because it’s a designation=public_bridleway doesn’t mean that it’ll be a highway=bridleway - it might be something very different (sometimes even steps!). I’d also add surface information and if I remember smoothness and if appropriate tracktype. The Garmin maps I use flag things that don’t have these tags as a prompt to collect it.

I’d get the designation correct next, usually based on signage.

Access tags next - although designation=public_bridleway implies a legal right of foot, horse, and bicycle access, routers from around the world can’t be expected to understand a local England and Wales-only tag, so adding foot, horse and bicycle tags makes sense. If the route is new I’ll just add foot=yes, horse=yes, bicycle=yes because fundamentally these are accesstags.

There’s a bit of an issue with using (mode)=designated in England and Wales because (on something that isn’t a public_bridleway) it’s entirely possible for something to be horse=permissive by law but still “designated” for horses to use. What tends to happen is that people (at least in England and Wales) often treat =designated as a synonym for =yes.

Another slight issue with =designated was that until designation became widespread as a tag people used e.g. horse=designated as a synonym for “public bridleway”. I can think of many public bridleways that I wouldn’t recommend for horse traffic for various reasons.

Notwithstanding the above, if someone has tagged a public bridleway with horse=designated I’ll tend to leave that tag.

I tend not to add prow_ref myself, not through any problem with the tag but just out of laziness(!). If people are using an appropriate source to add this data to OSM then I’ll welcome its addition.

To answer your specific questions:

  • I wouldn’t differentiate between =designated and =yes, but I’m sure some mappers would.
  • I would add bicycle=yes but would also add other tags that might deter casual cyclists from inappropriate routes
  • At least one route planner uses the smoothness tag explicitly. I think others allow data customisation at import with e.g. a lua script; any that do could potentially support any tag but commonly used hosted examples may not, and might not even understand UK road rules at all.
2 Likes
3

Firstly remember UK rights of way are different in each of the nations although they are the same in England and Wales.

Looking through “Robert’s OpenStreetMap Stuff” website, UK Public Right of Ways (PROW) seem to be a bit of a mess. Before I start manually updating some tags on existing routes, I want to confirm that my understanding on UK PROW tagging is correct – in particular public bridleways.

In what way are they a mess?

My understanding is that all UK public bridleways should contain the below tags. The only exception being bicycle=designated should be bicycle=no if bicycles are explicitly forbidden by a local authority or by-law.

highway     = *
designation = public_bridleway
horse       = designated
foot        = designated
bicycle     = designated
prow_ref    = *

I tend to go with bicycle=yes, they were added as part of the 1968 Countryside Act which contains

Any member of the public shall have, as a right of way, the right to ride a bicycle, [F1not being a mechanically propelled vehicle], on any bridleway, but in exercising that right cyclists shall give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback.

So not quite the same right as walkers and horseriders.

Sources:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_bridleways
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:designation%3Dpublic_bridleway

And also, that even if the public bridleway is not physically suitable for bicycles, it should still be tagged as bicycle=designated, as the tag denotes the public have a legally protected right to access it on a bicycle, rather than whether or not it is actually suitable for bicycles.

That is correct, access tags are legal not that it is practical.

“…designated ways are intended to be usable for the designated purpose(s). If real world usability does not match designation the ways should be still tagged as designated with additional tags such as for example smoothness=horrible to describe the real world (un)usability.”

Source:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated

So, when adding missing PROW reference numbers for example, it would make sense to also check the above tags are correct. I.E. a public bridleway should be tagged as foot=designated instead of foot=yes, and tagged as bicycle=designated instead of Bicycles = Not Specified.

Where are you sourcing prow_refs from

Is my understanding correct? And route planners for bicycles should be using smoothness=*, surface=*, tracktype=*, etc. instead to determine suitability?

That is how, I believe, cycle.travel does it.

For a question such as this you will get more responses on the UK specific talk-gb mailing list which is very active.

1 Like
4

=designated and =yes are synonymous in England & Wales PRoW tagging. There is no reason to change one to the other - all you’ll be doing is churning the way version.

With an appropriate highway= tag then access rights are implied. In England & Wales, highway=bridleway implies horse, bike and foot access; highway=cycleway implies bike and foot access; highway=footway implies foot access. You can add individual access tags if you like but it’s not necessary.

highway=service and highway=track are unspecific and it’s always worth adding access tags to these.

5

Certainly agree with this.

A few years ago the National Trust were setting out their approach to tagging PRoWs on their estate and we (the OSM UK community & NT GIS folk) had quite detailed discussions about mode=designated or mode=yes, and IIRC decided the former added no additional information. It is also somewhat opaque to those unfamiliar with the niceties of OSM tags.

As others have said that explicit tagging of access modes is useful, because there are quite a number of widely used outdoor apps which do a poor job of handing a public bridleway without them.

1 Like
6

Not quite though. Access rights are only fully implied by designation=*.

For example, highway=bridleway could be used for a public footpath that is also a permissive bridleway. So foot=designated (or yes) but horse=permissive. It probably doesn’t also say anything about bikes, so perhaps even bicycle=no.

1 Like
7

In that case you override the implied rights with an access tag, yes. I’m not quite sure what your point is.

8

Thanks.

In that example, if there’s a sign on the gate saying the public designated footpath has been upgraded from a public footpath to a permissive Bridleway by the landowner, wouldn’t a permissive bridleway imply permissive bicycle access as well, given that the UK government definition of a bridleway is for walking, horse riding, bicycles, mobility scooters or powered wheelchairs?

If it can’t be assumed, wouldn’t Bicycles = Not Specified be more appropriate?

9

It wouldn’t imply it in England and Wales - it’d be up to the landowner. The legal status (designation in OSM terms) of “public bridleway” is what implies a right to access on a bike. Ways that are permissive for horses are often also permissive for bikes, but not always

1 Like
10

My expectation would be almost certainly not.

Landowners are often riders, and have friends who are riders. Creation of permissive bridleways will pretty much entirely be through interaction with local riders or the British Horse Society (although their RoW officer local to me is a cyclist). These groups may not consider cyclists, or want to avoid them. For instance this survey of riders in Windsor & Maidenhead has 32% of riders reporting issues with cyclists off-road (quite a lot less than on roads). However about two-thirds are in favour of multi-access paths. The report also has more info on a couple of permissive riding routes (Cookham & Knowl Hill Bridle Circuits), and a BHS document as an appendix.

11

A “Permissive Bridleway” is not really a thing AIUI. There’s no such formal legal status. It’s only ever a shorthand that a landowner, or whoever’s erecting the signs, might use to summarise the permissive rights they’re offering over a particular path.

There are 1,278 designation=permissive_bridleway tags in OSM and I suspect most, if not all, of them shouldn’t be there - it’s not a “designation” as such.

Here’s an example of something described as a “Permissive Bridleway” where bikes are allowed. As @SK53 observes there’ll be other locations where they’re not. (Locally we have a public footpath where the landowner has offered permissive cycle rights, but very deliberately not equestrian rights!)

1 Like
12

There seems to be some crossed wires. In “Casey_boy’s” example the designation is – and will still remain – a designated public footpath. That doesn’t change.

In the example given, it would be tagged as follows:

highway     = bridleway
designation = public_footpath
foot        = designated
horse       = permissive
prow_ref    = ABC123

My question was regarding how bicycles should be tagged in this example if there’s a sign on the gate saying the public designated footpath has been upgraded from a public footpath to a permissive Bridleway by the landowner.

The tags above would stay exactly the same, however volunteer mappers are unlikely to contact every landowner and ask them whether it includes bicycles too, especially if the landowner who owns the estate may not even be local. Therefore, which one of these should bicycles be tagged as in this scenario?

bicycle=no
bicycle=permissive
Bicycles = Not Specified

The original post suggested perhaps bicycle=no, however as we don’t know the status, wouldn’t Bicycles = Not Specified be more appropriate? Or should it be set as bicycle=no to match the official designation – which is still a public footpath.

13

Fairly simple: if you don’t know what something is, don’t tag it as if you do. designation=public_footpath already implies there is no public right of way for bikes, but doesn’t say anything about any extra permissions the landowner offers. So if you don’t know whether those permissions exist, don’t tag them.

FWIW if a landowner describes a path as a “permissive bridleway” then they shouldn’t really come over all surprised-Pikachu if cyclists treat it as an, um, bridleway, but there you go.

(Bicycles = Not Specified isn’t a tag - I guess you’re referring to the part of the iD interface which shows that if a tag isn’t present.)

1 Like
14

A landowner can not upgrade a “public designated footpath” to a “permissive Bridleway”

The designation of “Public Footpath” is a right of way by foot created by legislation, and can only be changed by the appropriate local authority.

The Land Owner can separately give permission for other uses of the a path on their land. Adding a “Permissive Bridleway” sign could result in confusion. The intent may be to show horse has permissive use, but would may cause confusion about the right of way by foot, and whether a pedal cycle has permissive access. I believe the sign could result in an illegal act if it misleads pedestrians about the right of way of foot.

The concept of a permissive bridleway, is a bit of problem for access questions. In the UK the term bridleway now implies access for bicycles. I’d be tempted to use bicycle=permissive, but would put some effort into attempting to confirm this.

1 Like