Hi, ok - see yourself/someone has already sorted it. Thanks. Was just trying to indicated lots of people were walking along and using it as a through route rather then just for waiting for a trip.

Hallo, ist die Kennzeichnung der Waldabfahrt als piste:grooming=classic wirklich die beste Option, wenn sie nur selten präpariert wird? Ich denke, der übliche Status wäre passender? Man könnte es im Namen belassen. Lasst mich wissen, was ihr denkt.

Hi, ops yes and thanks for the heads up. Honestly I have no idea what I was thinking and "drinks" does not seem to be a common value. I have just deleted it.

Ops yes - thanks! I'll sort it.

Hi! Honestly doing that was sort of my intention. It would still result in 2 seperate paths either side of the river - if people want to look and investigate what crossings there are then that is up to them. And the bridge is still in the data - complete with note. Most of the path has fallen into the river - it isn't there on the ground. Just the remains of a bridge, which you could if you were so inclined walk across. Just in the same why you could walk over lots of things - but it doesn't mean there is a path there.

Particularly if someone is heading West to East it would also be a very long way round (and quite a bit of climbing) if someone was not comfortable with the bridge. And I think calling it a path really oversells its current condition!

Good to hear there are some plans for fixing it! It's a beautiful place down in the gorge.

That said though if its a decision that's been made to have it like this by several local OSM Georgia then absolutely leave it as is if you'd prefer. Just wanted to offer my opinion (and extreme surprise!) as a tourist and I wasn't aware it had been discussed wider then you 2.

Sounds good to me, I'll give it a bit to see if Argbjorn or anyone else has a view

Just came across this bridge and yeah it's an an absolutely abismal state and needs something. Calling it a bridge almost feels like an exaggeration. I forded the river rather then using it.

I'd like to make the suggestion of removing the highway=path tag but leaving everything else as is? It isn't a path - most of the path has long fallen into the river!

How does that sound?

Hi TrekClimbing,

Is this about Cunliffe Lane? Or just in general?

Maybe it you could even have something like designation=non-definitive-bridleway? That is probably falling fowl of verification though.

To me proposed implies a dmmo or similar has been submitted. I think the response you have from Bradford council there is much more promising them you'd get from some others! Equally a not:designation=* also feels a little far.

Maybe non-definitive:designation=* as a suggestion?

Salut,

Honnêtement, c'était il y a 5 ans et je ne m'en souviens pas. C'est possible si c'était signé que je n'ai pas compris (je ne parle pas français) chaque fois que c'était un parcours ou un événement. Ou que je ne savais pas ce que je faisais à l'époque. N'hésitez pas à modifier/supprimer selon les coutumes locales.

No I didn't

*granularity

Ah perfect, no worries and always worth checking. Yeah its just the but right into the farm, I'll add that in more grandually.

Hi,

I'm sure that they used to be tracks historically. And maybe I'm wrong but I didn't feel they where wide enough to qualify. You physically couldn't drive a 4x4 down it due to the overgrowth on the sides which I suppose is the metric I've normally gone for. But that's more from what I'd call them day to day rather then anything I've head on OSM.

I sadly didn't take any photos but there is a old one at https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5723832 - and day to day I'd call that a path without any knowledge based on that photo, not a track (though well aware the person who posted it disagree), these days sides are more overgrown rather then grass.

If they where not Bridleways I'd have changed them to Footpath, went for Bridleways due to the legal status (which is signed on the ground). This is what I tagged for way/158237527/

Looking on the wiki (highway=track) it says "Track roads are used by four-wheeled (two-track) vehicles and often take the form of two wheel tracks in the ground (also known as a two-track road)" which I'd say is a fair description and I don't think these meet that - not having 2 tracks and not being useable by 4 wheeled vehicles.

Yeah I did have a good walk thanks - and always welcome input/corrections - do you know the area?