Last night someone consolidated lots of designation values using “Osm.Org Tags Editor” (whatever that is). In some cases the resulting designation contradicts other sources (though of course sources contradicting each other does happen - road classification in England and Wales is a bit of a mess in the real world and OSM reflects that).
I’m sure that the changes came from a desire to make OSM’s data better but I’m concerned that some of the potential issues with these tag changes haven’t been understood. I’ve commented on a couple of changesets asking about individual changes.
For this one, the latest Google StreetView imagery is from 2022 (which they reference in the changeset comment). In the 2022 imagery, there is a BOAT sign. Prior to that, there is not.
Might be worth checking that they haven’t used this as a source.
Ok, I’ll hold my hand up - firstly, I’ll introduce myself … I’m Russ, from Hereford, and Yes, the intentions are good…
I don’t change stuff without good reason, and I have been involved with Rights of Way since 1977 so I’m not totally naive on its quirks. Its always been dear to my heart as I have been riding “Green lanes” since the days of RuPP’s and jotting notes from the Definitive Maps in Council offices. And I pray for the day that OSM will become a definitive resource for the general band of people who use these old roads for pleasure… some way off, I feel.
However I realised how bad it was when trying to ensure that all ways on the UK “TET” route existed on OSM. Reading the Wiki’s left me confused as to how to tag, so its no surprise that casual users add a myriad of tags they feel appropriate.
While BOATs’, restricted Byways, paths & bridleways are covered, there seemed this huge void as to information on tagging what we are not supposed to refer to as “ORPA’s” (or UCR’s in old speak).
I initially tagged them as “designation=unclassifed_county_road” but reading UK Designation Tagging Warnings and User:Rjw62/PRoW Tagging - OpenStreetMap Wiki, I duly changed them to “designation=unclassifed_highway”. Later it was inferred that the info in the latter was not actually a Wiki, but a suggestion.
Some may have remained, which I why I made some recent changes where OSM simply looked wrong (i.e, notes intended for a lane, being added to the adjacent tarred road), while searching for mine.
And you can slap my wrists, as for a while, where a mesh of routes crossed open land, I was adding the name=BOAT/UCR etc to the one or two legal routes in an attempt to help local users stay on the right track. I have removed most of these now … a victory for data purists at the sacrifice of a practical map, I believe.
So, moving on, I hope this prompts a review of the ProW Wiki. I have answered Andy’s changeset comments, but in one, he did infer that the designation should follow whats signed locally - I don’t think that is correct. And if the local sign is to be reflected in the name tag, then are we not back the situation above where the name becomes “Clifford/Byway” as in many parts of Wales local to me ?
I wanted to answer the Comment, but I will leave it there. Im happy to contribute my worth if the Wiki needs improving, otherwise we can just keep the status quo.
Rgds, Russ.
The challenge I think is that there are two conflicting sources of information - “public rights of way” such as “byways open to all traffic” and lists of streets (where not a road, often shown on Ordnance Survey maps as “Other Road with Public Access”). There are sometimes conflicts between the two. This overpass query shows one set of correct but implausible combinations - see this example for the individual sources.
It’s true that maps created in e.g. Germany or the USA might not bother showing designation tags because the authors are not familiar with the concept, but it’s certainly possible** to do so, and it’s also possible to show where the council thinks the rights of way are too. Also there there are some Garmin maps (in those the designation is appended to the way name in brackets, but of course other actions such as “treat this as a road!” are also possible).
I guess its no wonder its become such a difficult task to keep OSM up to date with access legality. Until you pointed this conflict out to me, I would not have thought possible. And lets be honest, Ordnance Survey have made it clear they are not responsible for access definitions, hence the ORPA. Perhaps there is an argument for creating our equivalent.
Having converted from Potlatch to iD as an editor, I wonder if long term, that could be configured to assist in adding RoW in perhaps a more assertive manner than currently. ie.,when adding a legal foot path/bridleway, there is a greyed prompt to add the access designation. I wonder if a something along the lines of a checkbox that shows it has has legal access, then opens up another section showing the derivation (& refs) of the info.
Pink Duck has set a great example in Norfolk - that would be great to see it extended across the country !