https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |
I created that way when adding detail, but I think I just used the access tags which were already there. Per http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/903/hermitage_of_braid_local_nature_reserve_management_plan.pdf cycling was forbidden prior to the Land Reform Act, and there were notices up saying so. It's probably a leftover from that. Note that access is currently blocked by locked gates in the construction site. So lets leave this note open and then change the tags when the construction finishes.
OK
I wonder if we need to have a more widespread review of the tagging of paths in this area, many have the redundant foot=yes, some have bicycle=yes and I would only ride a MTB there.
Also, is it useful to have some named "Blackford Hill Paths".
Personally, I think a lot of this information is redundant, but happy to be proved wrong
Agree. Would very much support removal of 'Blackford Hill Paths' as I understand the naming of paths would be for established and verifiable names - which these aren't. The name tag isn't for a description. Also, as you say dnoble, bicycle=yes in my view should be used in Scotland for paths which are clearly sensible for everyday cycling (not requiring a mountain bike), and probably observed to actually be used in this way. Given the land reform act bicycle=yes makes no sense otherwise as it would need to be applied to almost every path. I guess that a helpful way to think of this would be to ask whether an average bicycle user, using a routing/navigation/satnav type system, would want to be told to turn along a given path. If yes, then 'bicycle-yes' is helpful - if no then it's not. Foot=yes may be redundant, but you're a more patient editor than me if you can be bothered removing!
And is it time to put bicycle=yes back on the service road?
(above notes both from me)
A path tidy up is probably good. In addition to the issues above, there is a mixture of footways and paths, which are rendered the same on opensteetmap.org, but differently in (e.g.) osmand. I've never been clear what the distinction is supposed to be. The gates on the road at either end of the building site are still locked, cyclists would have to ride round the gravel/mud path to the south.
OK - perhaps we still want it not be bicycle =yes - but I'd be enthusiastic about removing bicycle=no at least.
My preference on the difference between footway and path has always been to regard a footway as something which you'd be happy to be routed onto in navigating a city - and a path to be anything else. I don't think there's ever been any agreement about this and indeed you'll see several photos from this area on the page I wrote proposing a pathtype measure (which clearly isn't right because it's not been taken up) to get around the issues this creates: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pathtype(alternative)
OK, I have had a go at rationalising the tagging of paths on the hill. I have used "footway" for the 2-3m wide really obvious gravel paths, and "path" for everything else. Have removed access tagging, as it didn't add anything beyond the default.
Have tried to tag surface, width, visibility, too.
Will have a look at Blackford Glen sometime too, but need to check a few paths I don't know