Bridleway or track?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
42 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bridleway or track?

Martin Wynne
What is the dividing line between:

  highway=bridleway  designation=public_bridleway

and

  highway=track  designation=public_bridleway

The wiki says a track must be suitable for farm vehicles, but it's a
rare bridleway that is only wide enough for a horse, and not for a small
tractor or 4x4 type vehicle.

Which taken logically would mean that highway=bridleway would hardly
ever be used. But it's a useful indication for map users when rendered
-- in the UK at least a bridleway is almost always a public right of
way. Whereas a way rendered as a track is often private. The standard
renderings for a track differentiate between surface conditions, but not
access.

Does a track require actual evidence of recent vehicular use? The wiki
doesn't say so. And must the vehicle be motorised? For example if the
last time a way was used by a wheeled vehicle was a horse and cart 50
years ago, was it then a bridleway or a track? And what is it now?

If I tag a way as a bridleway, and then a few weeks later see a tractor
using it, should I change it to a track?

For example, is this a bridleway or a track?

  http://85a.uk/worc_way_1600x980.jpg

Thanks,

Martin.



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bridleway or track?

Great Britain mailing list
I use evidence on the ground - is it wide enough for any type of four
wheel vehicle & are there signs of wheel tracks.

I would disagree that bridleways only wide enough for a horse are rare.

If a track is designated as a public_bridleway by signage or definitive
statement then there is right of access even if privately owned.

AFAIA a cart (or "a vehicle which is not mechanically propelled") the
designation has to be a restricted_byway (or higher)

I would tag your example as a track.

Overpass in the UK returns:
bridleway/public_bridleway = 15495
track/public_bridleway = 9973

Please remember there are more renderings than just the 'standard' one
on the main page.



On 03/03/2019 16:11, Martin Wynne wrote:

> What is the dividing line between:
>
>  highway=bridleway  designation=public_bridleway
>
> and
>
>  highway=track  designation=public_bridleway
>
> The wiki says a track must be suitable for farm vehicles, but it's a
> rare bridleway that is only wide enough for a horse, and not for a
> small tractor or 4x4 type vehicle.
>
> Which taken logically would mean that highway=bridleway would hardly
> ever be used. But it's a useful indication for map users when rendered
> -- in the UK at least a bridleway is almost always a public right of
> way. Whereas a way rendered as a track is often private. The standard
> renderings for a track differentiate between surface conditions, but
> not access.
>
> Does a track require actual evidence of recent vehicular use? The wiki
> doesn't say so. And must the vehicle be motorised? For example if the
> last time a way was used by a wheeled vehicle was a horse and cart 50
> years ago, was it then a bridleway or a track? And what is it now?
>
> If I tag a way as a bridleway, and then a few weeks later see a
> tractor using it, should I change it to a track?
>
> For example, is this a bridleway or a track?
>
>  http://85a.uk/worc_way_1600x980.jpg
>
> Thanks,
>
> Martin.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bridleway or track?

Warin
In reply to this post by Martin Wynne
On 04/03/19 03:11, Martin Wynne wrote:

> What is the dividing line between:
>
>  highway=bridleway  designation=public_bridleway
>
> and
>
>  highway=track  designation=public_bridleway
>
> The wiki says a track must be suitable for farm vehicles, but it's a
> rare bridleway that is only wide enough for a horse, and not for a
> small tractor or 4x4 type vehicle.
>
> Which taken logically would mean that highway=bridleway would hardly
> ever be used. But it's a useful indication for map users when rendered
> -- in the UK at least a bridleway is almost always a public right of
> way. Whereas a way rendered as a track is often private.

> The standard renderings for a track differentiate between surface
> conditions, but not access.

Rule 1: Ignore the renders! Tag the truth.

Some renders do show access restrictions.

>
> Does a track require actual evidence of recent vehicular use? The wiki
> doesn't say so. And must the vehicle be motorised? For example if the
> last time a way was used by a wheeled vehicle was a horse and cart 50
> years ago, was it then a bridleway or a track? And what is it now?
>
> If I tag a way as a bridleway, and then a few weeks later see a
> tractor using it, should I change it to a track?

If a field is used for a helicopter landing .. should you tag it as a
heliport?

My answer is - what is it regularly used for and is suitable for that
use? Not what it could be or seldom used for.

If it has not been used for some time then disused:*=* could be useful.

Yes, there will be some judgement required.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bridleway or track?

Great Britain mailing list


On 03/03/2019 22:54, Warin wrote:
> If a field is used for a helicopter landing .. should you tag it as a
> heliport?
If a one off, no, but if occasional then Helipad is appropriate in that
case.

>
> My answer is - what is it regularly used for and is suitable for that
> use? Not what it could be or seldom used for.

Please remember 'regularly' doesn't mean the same as 'frequently'. It
can still be 'seldom used' & regular.

Frequency of use should have no bearing on tagging. if it's able to be
used for certain purpose, then it can be tagged to indicate it. It
doesn't have to be a primary tag.

>
> If it has not been used for some time then disused:*=* could be useful.

Disused indicates an official closure, not how rarely it's used.


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bridleway or track?

Warin
On 04/03/19 10:22, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

>
>
> On 03/03/2019 22:54, Warin wrote:
>> If a field is used for a helicopter landing .. should you tag it as a
>> heliport?
> If a one off, no, but if occasional then Helipad is appropriate in
> that case.
>
>>
>> My answer is - what is it regularly used for and is suitable for that
>> use? Not what it could be or seldom used for.
>
> Please remember 'regularly' doesn't mean the same as 'frequently'. It
> can still be 'seldom used' & regular.
>
> Frequency of use should have no bearing on tagging. if it's able to be
> used for certain purpose, then it can be tagged to indicate it. It
> doesn't have to be a primary tag.

A helicopter can land where ever there is space.
e.g. all football pitches can be used by a helicopter, therefore you
would have all football pitches tagged as helipads?

The fact that something can be used for a certain purpose does not mean
that it is used for that purpose.
And even if it is used for that purpose, but seldom, it may have only
done with special permission, so it is a temporary thing - which OSM
does not map.

>
>>
>> If it has not been used for some time then disused:*=* could be useful.
>
> Disused indicates an official closure, not how rarely it's used.

Err  it indicates that a feature is no longer used, but could be put
back into use with little effort.
Nothing necessarily  'official'. If I see a shop has closed .. I do not
know if it is 'official'. But I know it is 'disused' from the state of it.


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bridleway or track?

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by Martin Wynne

> but it's a rare bridleway that is only wide enough for a horse,

As DaveF has already suggested, I suspect that's hugely geographically variable - I can think of a few examples in Derbyshire, Notts and Yorkshire where "public bridleways" couldn't accommodate a horse, unless it wasn't much bigger than a large dog.

In addition to that things can change from track to bridleway and back (in OSM terms) as they get overgrown and as hedges get cut back.

At the end of the day you just do the best job you can based on one visit. Personally I render these things mostly based on the designation so as long as that's correct I'm happy :)

Best Regards,
Andy


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bridleway or track?

Philip Barnes
On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 19:37 +0000, Andy Townsend wrote:

> > but it's a rare bridleway that is only wide enough for a horse,
>
> As DaveF has already suggested, I suspect that's hugely
> geographically variable - I can think of a few examples in
> Derbyshire, Notts and Yorkshire where "public bridleways" couldn't
> accommodate a horse, unless it wasn't much bigger than a large dog.
>
> In addition to that things can change from track to bridleway and
> back (in OSM terms) as they get overgrown and as hedges get cut back.
>
> At the end of the day you just do the best job you can based on one
> visit. Personally I render these things mostly based on the
> designation so as long as that's correct I'm happy :)
>
And to back up what Andy says, some bridleways are just a legal line
crossing farmland.

Phil (trigpoint)


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bridleway or track?

Martin Wynne
Thanks for the comments.

I'm surprised some folks can be so dogmatic, I usually find myself
chewing my pencil. I was hoping someone might have some simple rules of
thumb. Wheel ruts or tyre marks clearly means "track", but it doesn't
take long for them to disappear if it hasn't been used by vehicles for a
while.

But I did only yesterday come across what clearly appeared to be a
track, with evident wheel ruts, but with a shiny new gate only about 4
feet wide, which is clearly too narrow for any vehicle. So that one is
decided, at least.

Changing the subject a little, is it still a track if wide enough for a
vehicle, but the landowner has physically blocked vehicles from entering
it with barrier=block like this:

  http://85a.uk/blocked_track_960x580.jpg

Which is rather different from a gate (which might need a key to unlock it).

The wiki says a track must be wide enough for two-track vehicles, which
this is, but doesn't say that they must be able to physically access it.

cheers,

Martin.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bridleway or track?

Great Britain mailing list


On 10/03/2019 22:37, Martin Wynne wrote:
> Thanks for the comments.
>
> I'm surprised some folks can be so dogmatic,

A surprising comment considering on your 'rarity' claim.

> Changing the subject a little, is it still a track if wide enough for
> a vehicle, but the landowner has physically blocked vehicles from
> entering it with barrier=block

There's clearly no evidence of 4 wheeled vehicles, so it should be
marked as a bridleway, but It's advisable to check the whole length as
sections can be used by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get
between adjacent fields.

Cheers
DaveF

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bridleway or track?

Warin
On 11/03/19 10:03, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
>
>
> On 10/03/2019 22:37, Martin Wynne wrote:
>> Thanks for the comments.
>>
>> I'm surprised some folks can be so dogmatic,
>
> A surprising comment considering on your 'rarity' claim.

Comment? If a clear distinction between two things is wanted then there
needs to be a dogmatic answer? :)

>
>> Changing the subject a little, is it still a track if wide enough for
>> a vehicle, but the landowner has physically blocked vehicles from
>> entering it with barrier=block
>
> There's clearly no evidence of 4 wheeled vehicles, so it should be
> marked as a bridleway,
Is there evidence of bridleway use?
> but It's advisable to check the whole length as sections can be used
> by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get between adjacent fields.

Then the sections will have to be separated and individually tagged.

{beer? I think I'll just have a cup of tea. (meaning .. don't take any
of this discussion personally)}





_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bridleway or track?

Great Britain mailing list


On 10/03/2019 23:19, Warin wrote:
> Is there evidence of bridleway use?

The title of the thread is "Bridleway *or* track?"

>> but It's advisable to check the whole length as sections can be used
>> by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get between adjacent fields.
>
> Then the sections will have to be separated and individually tagged.

Err... Yes

>
>
> {beer? I think I'll just have a cup of tea. (meaning .. don't take any
> of this discussion personally)}

Who was doing that?

DaveF

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bridleway or track?

Martin Wynne
In reply to this post by Great Britain mailing list
> There's clearly no evidence of 4 wheeled vehicles, so it should be
> marked as a bridleway, but It's advisable to check the whole length as
> sections can be used by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get
> between adjacent fields.

It's a public bridleway, with the usual "evidence", so no argument about
that.

But is it highway=bridleway or highway=track?

There is evidence of recent wheeled use, which I think was a tractor
gaining access across the adjacent fields for the purpose of
hedge-trimming alongside it. It clearly was once a vehicular track.

What I think I'm getting at is this -- is the highway= tag intended to
represent the physical appearance, or the intended use?

cheers,

Martin.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bridleway or track?

Warin
On 11/03/19 10:45, Martin Wynne wrote:

>> There's clearly no evidence of 4 wheeled vehicles, so it should be
>> marked as a bridleway, but It's advisable to check the whole length
>> as sections can be used by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get
>> between adjacent fields.
>
> It's a public bridleway, with the usual "evidence", so no argument
> about that.
>
> But is it highway=bridleway or highway=track?
>
> There is evidence of recent wheeled use, which I think was a tractor
> gaining access across the adjacent fields for the purpose of
> hedge-trimming alongside it. It clearly was once a vehicular track.
>
> What I think I'm getting at is this -- is the highway= tag intended to
> represent the physical appearance, or the intended use?

Arr ..
I'd tag the present use.

highway=track
motor_vehicle=private?
horse=yes
surface=unpaved

Where the 'wheeled use' is not evident then I'd tag highway=bridleway etc.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bridleway or track?

Philip Barnes

On Monday, 11 March 2019, Warin wrote:

> On 11/03/19 10:45, Martin Wynne wrote:
> >> There's clearly no evidence of 4 wheeled vehicles, so it should be
> >> marked as a bridleway, but It's advisable to check the whole length
> >> as sections can be used by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get
> >> between adjacent fields.
> >
> > It's a public bridleway, with the usual "evidence", so no argument
> > about that.
> >
> > But is it highway=bridleway or highway=track?
> >
> > There is evidence of recent wheeled use, which I think was a tractor
> > gaining access across the adjacent fields for the purpose of
> > hedge-trimming alongside it. It clearly was once a vehicular track.
> >
> > What I think I'm getting at is this -- is the highway= tag intended to
> > represent the physical appearance, or the intended use?
>
> Arr ..
> I'd tag the present use.
>
> highway=track
> motor_vehicle=private?
> horse=yes
> surface=unpaved
>
> Where the 'wheeled use' is not evident then I'd tag highway=bridleway etc
>
Access tags for a bridleway in the UK or in my experience  England and Wales should be horse=designated, foot=designated and bicycle=designated. As Andy mentioned the important tag is designation=public_bridleway.

Phil (trigpoint)

--
Sent from my Sailfish device
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bridleway or track?

Martin Wynne
On 11/03/2019 08:49, [hidden email] wrote:

> Access tags for a bridleway in the UK or in my experience  England and Wales should be horse=designated, foot=designated and bicycle=designated. As Andy mentioned the important tag is designation=public_bridleway.

Thanks Phil. I'm doing all that, but it's not the question.

The question is:

  highway=bridleway or highway=track ?

I'm not much wiser on how to decide between them.

More generally, does highway= indicate the physical appearance as
surveyed -- or the intended use, as designated?

If it's the latter, as for example highway=primary, how is the actual
appearance to be mapped and tagged?

cheers,

Martin.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bridleway or track?

Devonshire
I have personally deprecated highway=bridleway|byway etc. as the combination of highway=footway|track|service and designation=public_footpath etc. contains more useful information both for map rendering and for active map users. Whether you wan't to do the same is up to you.

Kevin

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019, at 11:14 AM, Martin Wynne wrote:
On 11/03/2019 08:49, [hidden email] wrote:

> Access tags for a bridleway in the UK or in my experience  England and Wales should be horse=designated, foot=designated and bicycle=designated. As Andy mentioned the important tag is designation=public_bridleway.

Thanks Phil. I'm doing all that, but it's not the question.

The question is:

  highway=bridleway or highway=track ?

I'm not much wiser on how to decide between them.

More generally, does highway= indicate the physical appearance as 
surveyed -- or the intended use, as designated?

If it's the latter, as for example highway=primary, how is the actual 
appearance to be mapped and tagged?

cheers,

Martin.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bridleway or track?

Rob Nickerson
In reply to this post by Martin Wynne
>More generally, does highway= indicate the physical appearance as
surveyed -- or the intended use, as designated?

Hi Martin,

First map the feature: Use the highway tag to describe how it looks physically.

Add the legal status: Use designation=* to add a legal status (e.g. designation=public_bridleway) as the most important tag in England & Wales. The horse=yes tag is useful for global users who don't pick up the designation tag in their routing services.


Quote: "Note: Rather than being influenced by the name of the access provision, tag the feature according to what you observe on the ground. For example a 'Public Footpath' that runs along the route of a farmer's track should be tagged as highway=track rather than highway=footway."

Hope this helps,
Rob

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bridleway or track?

Great Britain mailing list
In reply to this post by Philip Barnes
highway=bridleway was, I believe, conceived to be used as a shortcut tag
for the below, but if the way is a track, they should be included.

DaveF

On 11/03/2019 08:49, [hidden email] wrote:
> Access tags for a bridleway in the UK or in my experience  England and Wales should be horse=designated, foot=designated and bicycle=designated. As Andy mentioned the important tag is designation=public_bridleway.


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bridleway or track?

Great Britain mailing list
In reply to this post by Martin Wynne


On 10/03/2019 23:45, Martin Wynne wrote:
>> There's clearly no evidence of 4 wheeled vehicles, so it should be
>> marked as a bridleway, but It's advisable to check the whole length
>> as sections can be used by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get
>> between adjacent fields.
>
> It's a public bridleway, with the usual "evidence", so no argument
> about that.
>
> But is it highway=bridleway or highway=track?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack

Specifically this, except substitute path for bridleway:
If the way is not wide enough for a two-track vehicle, it should be
tagged as highway=path.

>
> There is evidence of recent wheeled use, which I think was a tractor
> gaining access across the adjacent fields for the purpose of
> hedge-trimming alongside it. It clearly was once a vehicular track.

Then split the way up. Tag the sections accessible by vehicles as
highway=track
horse=designated
foot=designated
designation=public_bridleway
surface=*

width=* is also useful for both bridleway & track


> What I think I'm getting at is this -- is the highway= tag intended to
> represent the physical appearance, or the intended use?

With track, it probably has to be a bit of both, Physical appearance
should provide an indication of intended use. Unlike metalled highways,
tracks, unfortunately, rarely have clarifying reference signs like the
A4, M62 etc

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bridleway or track?

Adam Snape
In reply to this post by Devonshire


On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, 12:54 Devonshire, <[hidden email]> wrote:
I have personally deprecated highway=bridleway|byway etc. as the combination of highway=footway|track|service and designation=public_footpath etc. contains more useful information both for map rendering and for active map users. Whether you wan't to do the same is up to you.

Kevin

Byway is universally depreciated these days. 

It seems somewhat odd to reject bridleway whilst using footway which shares the same arguable 'flaw' of tagging both physical appearance and implied access in one tag. For those unhappy with these tags, as Dave mentions, the highway=path tag was designed to physically describe a physical path and be used in combination with access tags.

Now, I can understand using either the 'classic' (highway=footway or highway=bridleway) or 'alternate' (highway=path + access tags) tagging schemes but I'd think that a hybrid resulting in combinations like highway=footway horse=designated is best avoided .

Kind regards

Adam



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
123