Hi Mauls, with the greatest of respect, is it fair to draw a new public footpath some 100 mts off where it should be just because your GPS gave an erroneous reading - Im guessing you didnt walk across some chaps tennis court, and you did follow the route of the old railway in this section.
In which case, then can you not edit your walk to follow exsisting ways, rather than creating new ones? I have moved your line and kept the WVW relationships where its obvious but wud urge you to revise the rest. Rgds, Russ.

Have sent an email to talk-gb asking for guidance and consolidation of the pages... lets see what happens.

Rights of Way can be a complex issue, and to state it can be either a Public FP, or BOAT is a vast oversimplification. There are many other "categories"... one being for which many of us older chaps refer to, as an Unclassified County Road (UCR) ... a route that is maintainable at Public Expense, which usually infers a public right, although not always (as in the case of where TRO's have been implemented). These can verified by either checking the local Council definitive map, or viewing the National Street Gazetteer.
As far as tagging is concerned, I wish OSM had adopted the word UCR, or even ORPA which is something the OS invented... it does make far more sense.
But in choosing to be consistent, another wiki page (osm.wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Tagging) came up with a set of designations I have used for guidance to date.
Perhaps the fault lies within the Wiki which should be addressed, and have the two pages combined into one factual reference.
However, in the meantime, I'm happy to change, but with over 3,500 ways in the UK having the designation=unclassified_highway tag, we need a larger agreement, and an automated change before I will consider it.
While I appreciate your concerns, you should now understand my reasons for tagging in this manner, and await your comment.
Rgds.

Hi, basically a track that the public can use.
Russ

Surely the tag "shop=outdoor" is incorrect here for signalling items. Please change.

Ah, a dual status lane ... Im confused how to best map them... generally opting for the higher rights. Keep up the great work, Cheers.

way/190390662 : I'm a little confused as to why the designation of this little section has been changed to footpath. The BANES online map in 2021 shows as a BOAT - has it been reclassified recently ?

Hi Mike, This lane (Way: 42326884) as far as I know, is still being used by groups of motorcycle riders, following the established UK TET route without any issues.
Unless the road has been physically removed, then OSM convention is we still draw it, and note any restrictions, rather than changing the highway tag to no.
If it is genuinely blocked or closed, could you add in the note tag, something to that effect. I have taken the liberty to change it track for now, but wud welcome your input, as its not an area I have visited for some time personally. Russ.

NSG - National Street Gazetteer.
I referred to NERC as a light hearted mention of how things have changed since the 80's.
Before this gets into a pissing match, I am using osm.wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Tagging for my guidelines on tagging. If you believe this is not valid, then we better take this to the forum for larger input, & get the Wiki taken down or changed if no longer correct.
The example you refer to ... "Tynings Lane", is maintainable at public expense by the Local Highway Authority, or at least it was when I last checked. If you know that it has since been adopted privately then I stand corrected and will apologise and you may retag if you have evidence of such.

Most of my UCR info came from maps I marked up in the 80's after copying from the definitive map in the Council offices. That was a long time ago, and way before NERC... lanes dont change, but the designation can. There are some online sources you can look at too such as the NSG to corroborate status, if it does not show on Council ProW online maps (often they don't show UCR's as they are not actually a right of way, per se.) Does that help you?

Hi Dave, Its the designation we are supposed to use for highways maintainable at public expense.. ORPA's on the Ordnance survey, and UCR's (unclassified county roads) to old school trail riders. Some Councils reclassify to BOAT's after consultation, which is rare, but don't change existing data unless Im sure, hence the comment. Cheers.

Seems like chopping the Tertiary rd was the issue, not the byway. Careless maybe. Sorry !

So I'm trying to figure whats happening - Im breaking a way to tag the sections separately, but is the boundary relation getting destroyed some how?
Russ

Thanks Andy - Yes NP boundaries can be a nightmare (as I found in Thailand). Thanks for fixing. Russ.

We won't agree on this one .....
I don't arbitrarily change roads, and 2019 street imagery confirms that MM167 is the last freshly painted marker heading North on the 106. This also happens to fall on the CM-Lamphun boundary, and coincides with the database, (even if the DB shows the wrong location).
Still heading north, you then shortly see a new Provincial sign, ชม.106 indicating to me, that the National section finishes and the new section, is in essence, a provincial highway.
Yes, this is a new form of sign, and I would expect the DRR logo to be there, but the translation seems to come out as "Provincial Administrative Organisation".
I'm not Thai, and factual info is hard to gain, but being as the road does diminish in size, and I'm guessing the importance went when Hwy 11 was built, I felt the status had to change somewhere....
Im sure all will have a different view, but I have always stated my view that to take out differences in interpretation of importance, we need to follow the official classifications in tagging. This example reflects my work.
Yes, there may be older milestones on the Tertiary section, but I suspect these have never been removed, and as for the signage, well I guess that's serving a purpose so it was left.
Mapping is more an art than a science, and taking all into consideration, I believe I have mapped it correctly and hope it remains unchanged. I will in time, add the correct ref to the tertiary section, with a note.
Russ

Id mind because I dont think its right... I don't mind if you want to discuss on the Forum. A primary highway has physical characteristics which as the roads become more obstructed as they enter a city, surely the tagging has to change at some point.... the "official" mile zero seems a good one/ You may feel the "traffic lights just before the bridge" are more valid, but not me.

I think a waste of time, but be my guest.

That was 8 years ago, and of course, since then, we have had the massive pollution caused by Facebook tagging everything as "residential".
While there may not be a legal definition of a living street as such, in Thailand... roads in walled & secure gated communities in my mind, are of similar characteristics to the European counterparts. Other people continue to tag in this manner, and I feel its the most appropriate tag to use. I endeavour to only use for mapping within clearly defined "housing estates" rather than any small Soi with houses.
If you wish to use your powers to do a mass change, that's up to you ... personally, I think we have far greater issues to worry about.

Yes, I know it probably a bone of contention, but it seemed to make to sense, rather than end it at the bridge in CM. Are the signs you saw actually that of the road, or just directing you to it. The DOH database includes the mile marker positions, so it seemed to make sense to just start the labelling from MM Zero, rather than extend the primary status to where a looks like it might end.
And then should it be primary where clearly it doesn't match the physical description ... but lets not even go down that avenue 55
Just my take on things !
Cheers

As shown in the source tag, the Data originated from the DRR database. Its possible the road will be asphalted in the future, but as of today, no aerial images bear this out.
If a road has a ref, I add it. The construction tag was not appropriate as there was already a track there, and I had no evidence work was being done. To placate your concerns, I have changed it to unpaved minor rd, with the ref as a note only. We can upgrade once a survey or more evidence is found.
But its an ill wind as they say..., as there were a number of other "tracks" in this area that have now become 2 lane asphalted roads, including a new link bridge over the Kwae Noi,... all of which I have now added bringing the map up to date as best we can.
Cheers.