Please use this space to contribute feedback on the proposed path tagging schema.
Comment from BCNorwich on 30 July 2019 at 13:52
Hi, Re “Legal RoW but access discouraged”
It’s not legal to discourage legal use of a Public Right of Way, to do so would be intimidation. One would have recourse to the Highway Authority to rectify such a situation, and other avenues for recourse if it is the HA causing the intimidation.
Comment from SomeoneElse on 31 July 2019 at 15:13
Hi - it generally reads OK to me.
I’m not a fan of “foot=designated” just because you’ve got a legal right of access there; I’d tend to just use “yes” and leave “designated” for the original purpose of “somewhere that particular traffic is signed to use”. For example see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/299375428 is foot=designated because foot traffic is signed between the footpath that joins the main road and the roundabout and then back along the other side of the dual carriageway, not across what presumable was/is a right of way across the dual carriageway. It’s not a big issue though - plenty of people use “foot=designated” on public footpaths in England and Wales and that usage dates from when it was a cludge to indicate “public footpath”, before “designation” was widely used.
With regard to BCNorwich’s point, I can think of a few examples of “Legal RoW but access discouraged”. One obvious one is traffic regulation orders. I tend to leave the designation and add “access=no” or similar for the duration.
The “discouraged” tag (see e.g. https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Lef ) seems to be relatively rarely used in England and Wales - 66 foot=discouraged. “permitted” seems to be even less used. That’s been discussed on the tagging list in the past but I’m not sure there is a commonly accepted answer. I’ve done e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/142212112 previously.