DaveF's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 125819078 | Unsure, as they're mainly old edits & there's no wiki info. Appears to be mostly symbiotic with highway=* tags.
|
|
| 125817813 | Both of the above comments are, again, irrelevant deflections which I've already countered. If this was a relevant tag there'd be more than 44 examples & something in the wiki. |
|
| 125817813 | "with use-it-or-lose-it review upcoming" No.
|
|
| 125817813 | Again, all the ways were highway=footway. A *single* transport mode way. No other transport modes can use it. They were all designated as public footpaths (as clearly stated in the changeset comment). That means they have a *legal* right of access. Therefore there is no requirement for an access tag. |
|
| 125817813 | What's rude is that you haven't looked at the original tags, the amendments made & the wiki, even though I've quoted the relevant sections. You still haven't structured your comment well.
You then go on to agree with me that it's a PROW! The maintainer of the paths is completely irrelevant. I agree with you that "access=private does not stipulate that access is purely permissive (access=permissive).", but, again, that's irrelevant to this changeset. The legal access rights to walk on a PROW is neither private or permissive as PROWs are legally open to the general public & the owner of the land can not revoke the legal right. This changeset does not span "a large area". It was intentionally restricted to England. It was intentionally designed to amend just one tag on one specific object. It doesn't cross borders, it doesn't sail across oceans, it doesn't jump continents. "I am not sure what I am trying to say myself"
|
|
| 125817813 | The access tag was not attached to any landuse entities. The access tag was on the highway way & referred purely, and erroneously to that way.
All the edited ways are designation=public_footpath All the edited ways have a *legal* right for walkers to access the paths. This changeset has improved the quality of the OSM database. |
|
| 125817813 | "The definitive map and public rights of way are very much an outdated legal basis" Rubbish "with use-it-or-lose-it review upcoming and causing much fuss. So what? |
|
| 125817813 | " previous survey states “they've put a private sign up” So what?
|
|
| 125817813 | " in some cases the land owners still reject even that." So what? |
|
| 125817813 | "aking access=private off now means all types of vehicle may travel, " No.
|
|
| 125817813 | The access refers to the footpath not the land it passes over.
From OSMWiki
From Wikipedia:
|
|
| 125804926 | Hi
|
|
| 125629638 | No public transport tags are required for entities which aren't public transport. |
|
| 125629638 | Unsure what you mean. |
|
| 125629638 |
Miniature/Tourist railways are not public transport. Please don't add erroneous tags just because iD editor suggested it. |
|
| 16239605 | Hi
When attaching to waterways did you remap the waterways to suit the boundaries? |
|
| 124980511 | Are you sure?
|
|
| 124699300 | https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2018-August/021690.html " add it as an additional tag."
|
|
| 115110324 | Hi Please refrain from adding service=siding to railway tracks which are clearly for passengers trains which stop at platforms allowing passengers to disembark https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations-and-destinations/stations-made-easy/perth-station-plan |
|
| 125018528 | Are you sure this is a park?
|