I guess we’ll have to see what happens when all work is complete.

Perhaps it would be worth adding bicycle=yes to the road, and adding a barrier= node in the appropriate place describing how the road is blocked, to make it clearer the reason for motor_vehicle=no?

Thanks for updating the tagging again and for your explanation. The tagging of the track/path looks correct to me now.

Perhaps one approach would be to add some more detail to the map to make it clear why people shouldn’t go up Garth Row Lane. It’s already tagged as having a width restriction, but it could probably also be tagged as lane_markings=no and parking:both=no.

Is there somewhere where people *should* park to go and see Henry’s Castle? From aerial imagery there’s a layby at the southern end of the track, but I guess that might just be a passing place?

If there is somewhere designated for people to park, then that could be mapped and it’ll show up with a P symbol which should hopefully help lead people into taking the right path rather than Garth Row Lane.

Resolved by a local editor in changeset/183263225

Resolved by a local editor in changeset/183263225

whoops, I meant motor_vehicle=no, not access=no. Same question though

Thanks for updating this after the TomTom editors realigned the roads through the middle of the hedges and pavements.

Why is way/1523596804 access=no? Has it been closed off temporarily (or permanently) to prevent rat-running?

If so it might be helpful to add a note= tag to it explaining the tagging so that it’s easier for someone to update it consistently once the realignment works are all complete. Ta

I see you’ve made the same changes again in changeset/183263718.

Unless I’m missing something about the state of the track on the ground, the tagging was correct before. Please don’t change it just to make the map look like how you think it should look, that’s osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer.

If it’s physically a track that a vehicle would drive up (with permission), then the correct tagging is:

highway=track
access=private (to set the default access permissions)
foot=designated
designation=public_footpath

OSM doesn’t just exist to map UK footpaths, it exists to map everything, including farm tracks and their access provisions. Unless I’ve misunderstood the state of the track on the ground (and the aerial imagery is wrong) then this should be highway=track not highway=footway.

If you think I’ve made a mistake, please explain your reasoning. Thanks.

I think I see what’s happening here. The map you see on openstreetmap.org is one rendering of the underlying data. It uses a certain map style across the entire world. That style cannot accommodate the UK’s weird separation between rights of way and the physical path/track/nothing on the ground, so sometimes it’s not clear from what you see on openstreetmap.org as to what the legal right of way is.

The solution to this is to use a rendering of the OSM data which is aware of the UK’s access laws. For example, https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#17/54.31156/-2.80886

Many mobile navigation apps which use OSM data should pick up the footpath designation correctly and render it appropriately.

Hiya, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for trying to improve the map in your area :)

I’ve tweaked your changes because I think what was here was tagged correctly already. access=no on the bridge should mark it as out of use (to vehicles and pedestrians).

If people are continuing to be routed over it, that’s likely from them using an out of date map or satnav data.

We don’t delete or remove all the tags from features which are currently out of use. Instead we add tags (like access=no or lifecycle prefixes, osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix) to describe the current state of the feature and hence why it’s out of use.

Hope that makes sense, happy to discuss more if you have questions :) Please do help improve the map in your local area more!

Hiya, thanks for trying to improve the map. It was actually fine here — access tagging for public rights of way is separate from tagging the physical attributes of the way (whether it’s a track or path or road).

It’s necessarily a bit complicated because of the complexity of UK rights of way law, but reading osm.wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#First_map_the_feature should hopefully explain it a bit :)

Essentially, designation=public_footpath and foot=designated mark this as a public footpath. access=private sets the default access (e.g. for vehicles) and is overridden by foot=designated for foot access.

I’ve undone your changes as changeset/183227358

Happy to answer any questions if you have any.

In case the URI for the London Gazette breaks in future, the exact TRO is:

Lancaster City Council (Ridge Estate Zone) and (Marsh Estate Zone) (Prohibition of Heavy Commercial Vehicles) Order 1990 and Width Restriction Order 1990

It was published in issue 52078 of the Gazette, pages 3527-3528

In case the URI for the London Gazette breaks in future, the exact TRO is:

Lancaster City Council (Ridge Estate Zone) and (Marsh Estate Zone) (Prohibition of Heavy Commercial Vehicles) Order 1990 and Width Restriction Order 1990

It was published in issue 52078 of the Gazette, pages 3527-3528

In case the URI for the London Gazette breaks in future, the exact TRO is:

Lancaster City Council (Ridge Estate Zone) and (Marsh Estate Zone) (Prohibition of Heavy Commercial Vehicles) Order 1990 and Width Restriction Order 1990

It was published in issue 52078 of the Gazette, pages 3527-3528

Thanks for updating this after the A595 realignment works, but you’ve now got the road running through the middle of a hedge, twice.

Are you able to also update the surrounding geometry?

Hiya, what sources did you use for this? I believe there’s a realignment program going on along the A595 near Grizebeck, but the new alignment doesn’t show up on any aerial imagery.

In addition, the road now crosses over various fields, over the pavement, and the links in to the village don’t look right. Could you please correct all the surrounding geometry too if you’re going to make this change?

Thanks

OSM is a map of what’s on the ground (and, in the UK, what’s legally a designated right of way, if those don’t also physically exist on the ground). As the legal access covers this entire area, the question remains as to what is physically on the ground.

If there’s physically some path infrastructure (e.g. gate, stile) or a trod on the ground, then it should be mapped.

If there’s nothing physically on the ground then it shouldn’t be mapped.

5 years ago someone mapped this path using an on-the-ground survey and GPS traces (changeset/106643646) which suggests that, at least 5 years ago, a path physically existed on the ground.

It’s likely that a path continues to exist, as it’s an obvious route from the parking layby, and from the bridge over the Rothay, to the quieter road up the hill.

Changes have been made on OSM previously to discourage use of particular paths for conservation reasons, e.g. where the National Trust have physically tried to discourage people from using particular shortcuts to fix path erosion. However, in those cases they have provided equivalent alternative routes which are just as convenient (and hence likely to be used by people). In the case here, the alternative route (which you haven’t mapped or described adequately for someone else to map) appears to start several hundred metres further up a busy road which has no pavement. So it’s not really equivalent.

Are you the landowner? What is your ultimate goal here?

Access reinstated in changeset/182830354

Thanks, access reinstated in changeset/182830354

I didn’t realise that, thanks very much for pointing it out.

I’ve pointed this out on changeset/182660607#c1596571 and will update the map again (to mark the path as publicly accessible) in the next few days unless the original editor engages and gives a good reason why not.

It’s been pointed out by Pete Owens on changeset/182695854 that this is actually CROW access land, so all footpaths through it, except where through developed land and gardens, are publicly accessible.

You can see a map of CRoW boundaries here: https://mapscaping.com/england-crow-access-land-map/ (it’s public data)

I’ll revert the access changes (i.e. mark the footpath as publicly accessible) again in a few days unless someone replies here with a correction or clarification.

*Section 16 land is, aiui, where the land has been voluntarily denoted as access land by the land owner. Section 16 declarations are irrevocable. See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/section/16