OpenStreetMap
Recently had a delightful narrowboat cruise around the Milton Keynes area (yes the canal route is remarkably green here). When I checked mapping, I found that, a few years ago, much of the towpath had been mapped as ‘bridleway’. Now, canal users did originally use horses to tow their boats but that does not imply any general right of access, unless a towpath has been adopted as a PROW. Most of the UK Canal Network is now controlled by the Canal and River Trust and there are signs to say that pedestrians may use the towpath, while cyclists are ‘permissive’ and horse-riders should seek permission. I assume this applies to all their canals, see https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/cycling/cycling-faqs . I would support towpaths being mapped as bicycle = permissive (or yes); foot = yes; highway= footway; operator = Canal and River Trust; towpath = yes - and only designation= if a PROW. Where cycle networks run on towpaths then I’ve seen the use of highway=cycleway etc. Any other views? Maybe osm.wiki/United_Kingdom_waterways needs updating to reflect the available Canal and River Trust policies?
Discussion
Comment from SomeoneElse on 18 September 2018 at 15:43
Personally I wouldn’t assume that “highway=bridleway” implies universal horse access, only that it’s a way designed to be used by horses (among other traffic). You might guess at horse=yes if there’s no access tag added, but you can always add an explicit “horse” tag to make it clear. The converse is sometimes true - the footpaths at osm.org/#map=18/54.21721/-1.04628 are legally bridleways but you’d struggle to fit dobbin through.
I’ve seen towpaths that could qualify as any of highway=footway, bridleway, cycleway, track - it really depends on what it looks like locally.