I'm aware of the article - but I don't agree that it's unambiguous.

"On the other hand, in forests and on farmland the access is regulated by individual law in the federal states"

- this clearly (in my view) biases this article to US laws, which are not applicable in the UK, and against our normative practices which are very largely mandated by the OS. Which, without exception, shows Bridleways as Bridleways.

What do the public expect a bridlepath to be marked on a map as? If the route is drawn as you suggest, the map will show a track, nothing more, no matter how tagged it is. The reality is that such subtleties are largely ignored by many renderers - if it is a track it will be drawn as a track, not as a bridlepath (unless the renderer is very clever, which most aren't). Thus, the user in the field (of whom I am one, and who knows this local area well - I live only a few miles away) will check their map and be unclear as to the legal rights. Local signage is often incomplete.

We must protect the public rights, and OSM is a part of that. It follows that we must also protect OSM from those who which to steer a narrative that protects their interests, rather than the public's - such as a landowner wishing to suppress a legal right of way. I am not saying that's what's happening here, but it might be.

I won't reply any further - I think we have both put our sides across as well as we could and there's no further benefit to this back and forth. I encourage you to refer to the data working group as the OSM framework provides for such disputes. Thank you.

I can understand that viewpoint, but I (politely) disagree with it - and so does Ordnance Survey who identify bridleways as bridleways. (Including this one)

The legal definition is more important than the physical condition of the route, that's a well established cartographical norm.

Secondarily - If a landowner is specifying something else, one might assume they are trying to suppress the legal definition.

If you cannot accept this view, please file a dispute so that the change can be reviewed by a wider audience.

Hi. Certainly - a bridleway is a legal definition, and a track is not. OSM has always had a bridleway definition which is clearly understood and used widely throughout the UK, so when a way is legally defined as a bridlepath, that should be the definition used.

A track can be private or public and has no definition, and shows up very differently in most renderers.

Hope that clarifies the logic behind my change.

Hi Mike,

Nice to speak to you.

You're correct, it's not the real name of the lane, which AFAIK is unknown. (One could be facetious and claim it, since there is a signpost at the northern end at least which has Byway on it!)

My thoughts on this is that it's better to make it clear that this is a legal byway as many renderers don't have enough designations to make it clear. (OS do similar, although not on this short one) as it is a legal right of way, but not one most vehicles would choose. Routing software using the OSM data also doesn't differentiate very well (IME) so any extra guidance for the human is, in my mind, a good thing.

Appreciate the nod towards that designation, and one I've now added, but I would like to leave it as 'Byway' rather than empty and just another anonymous track.

Simon