I previously [previously raised a question question][1] about abnormal tagging on PRoW Oct-14. This is an expanded version of the same query including additional information. Public Rights of Way in eastern Hampshire (UK) are being tagged as access=private (the mapper states this is because they have been established by easement and the landowner has a right to prevent access). This results in ways losing their identity as footpaths or bridleways, being indistinguishable from genuine private ways on rendering used by OSM Standard, OSM Cycle Map & OSMAND. Routing for hikers, cyclists and other leisure users on OSMAND is wrecked, the routing software avoids footways, bridleways & tracks tagged access=private, even though low level tags of foot=yes etc have been used. The accepted usage for PRoW has always been access=yes, followed by low level tags where these are needed to indicate barred forms of traffic. This form is recognised throughout the Wiki, with access=private reserved for genuinely private roads & paths where access is conditional on the land-owner's assent. Reversing this creates substantial problems for software developers and creates a whole new set of exceptions that need to be programmed in. In (UK) legal terms the situation is clear. Landowners do not have any right to prevent public access to a registered PRoW for the designated class of traffic. Landowners do not have any right to stop up or abandon a PRoW. The route by which a PRoW was established has no bearing on established access rights and any attempt to thwart access is a criminal offence. Most rural PRoW pass over private land (either established by usage or agreement). If mappers accept reversed tagging then it is logical to extend this to all PRoW over all ground where there is title. It is also logical to extend it to roads that have been built under PFI contracts, where the facility is owned by a private company, so the Severn Crossings, M6 Toll etc can all be tagged as access=private (with sub tag motor_vehicle=yes). OSM is an international map, that implies mappers have some responsibility to maintain discipline in tagging, following established practice whenever possible. If mappers take highly individualistic views of how tags are applied we have mapping anarchy and the consequence of that is OSM will collapse under its own contradictions, leaving the market to the high cost producers who will always create a 100% reliable product. Unless this question is resolved I can have no confidence in OSM data used in routing applications and that loss of market confidence will spread out to more and more leisure users in the UK if they find their hiking or cycling route planning impossible using OSM data. [1]: https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/37777/rights-of-way-england-and-wales

I previously raised a question about abnormal tagging on PRoW Oct-14. This is an expanded version of the same query including additional information. Public Rights of Way in eastern Hampshire (UK) are being tagged as access=private (the mapper states this is because they have been established by easement and the landowner has a right to prevent access). This results in ways losing their identity as footpaths or bridleways, being indistinguishable from genuine private ways on rendering used by OSM Standard, OSM Cycle Map & OSMAND. Routing for hikers, cyclists and other leisure users on OSMAND is wrecked, the routing software avoids footways, bridleways & tracks tagged access=private, even though low level tags of foot=yes etc have been used. The accepted usage for PRoW has always been access=yes, followed by low level tags where these are needed to indicate barred forms of traffic. This form is recognised throughout the Wiki, with access=private reserved for genuinely private roads & paths where access is conditional on the land-owner's assent. Reversing this creates substantial problems for software developers and creates a whole new set of exceptions that need to be programmed in. In (UK) legal terms the situation is clear. Landowners do not have any right to prevent public access to a registered PRoW for the designated class of traffic. Landowners do not have any right to stop up or abandon a PRoW. The route by which a PRoW was established has no bearing on established access rights and any attempt to thwart access is a criminal offence. Most rural PRoW pass over private land (either established by usage or agreement). If mappers accept reversed tagging then it is logical to extend this to all PRoW over all ground where there is title. It is also logical to extend it to roads that have been built under PFI contracts, where the facility is owned by a private company, so the Severn Crossings, M6 Toll etc can all be tagged as access=private (with sub tag motor_vehicle=yes). OSM is an international map, that implies mappers have some responsibility to maintain discipline in tagging, following established practice whenever possible. If mappers take highly individualistic views of how tags are applied we have mapping anarchy and the consequence of that is OSM will collapse under its own contradictions, leaving the market to the high cost producers who will always create a 100% reliable product. Unless this question is resolved I can have no confidence in OSM data used in routing applications and that loss of market confidence will spread out to more and more leisure users in the UK if they find their hiking or cycling route planning impossible using OSM data.