|
I wonder if there is considered to be any benefit or value to add as a tag the landowner of a permissive path? What should be the Key, if that is the case? |
|
Assuming England & Wales: If the landowner is a significant estate, then there's some value in tagging them as the operator of the permissive path. So, for example, you might have However, for smaller landowners I would think the (limited) privacy concerns outweigh the (limited) benefit of tagging. |
|
I don't see any benefits. But I do see possible privacy issues when adding such information. 1
Richard, scai I thank you for your thoughts. I have two landowners in mind, at the moment: Nuffield College, Oxford: It owns the land around Nuffield House in Nuffield, apparently. There are signs permitting people to walk, except December 24th (to emphasise ownership, I guess). Phillimore Estate: In Binfield Heath, again with signs permitting access. None of this matters, however, if there is no particular use perceived.
(22 Sep '17, 10:42)
silver mapper
Whats the privacy problem with just a name and a web address ?
(22 Sep '17, 11:41)
Hendrikklaas
2
It's potentially personal information. A number of public databases have not been opened up for this very reason. When the owner is a corporation there is much less of a problem.
(22 Sep '17, 13:55)
SK53 ♦
Hendrikklaas: Smaller landowners will not have a webaddress. So it would need an address or phone number, which is definitely a privacy issue. This certainly applies to a access land and paths created as part of The National Forest.
(22 Sep '17, 13:55)
trigpoint
|
