Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 19:33, Mike Baggaley via Talk-GB wrote: > >Highway=no seems acceptable to me where a path is permanently physically > >blocked by a building or such-like. We're not serving anyone by directing > >people into wals. I do, however, disagree with its use to tag definitive > >rights of way which are useable but which merely deviate from the route a > >mapper mapped on the ground. Eg. I don't think a highway=no tag should be > >added to a cross field definitive footpath just because a path round the > >field has been mapped. > > In the case where a path has been permanently blocked, I would suggest > disused:highway=footway/bridleway, abandonded:highway=footway or > removed:highway=footway, depending on whether the path is still visible and > whether the blockage would be relatively easy or difficult to remove. This > seems to me to be much better than highway=no. That's a good suggestion. I wouldn't completely rule out using highway=no, but if one of your other suggestions fits it would be good to use it. I've now added those options to the "missing highway" checks my PRoW tool does, so if one of them have been used, it won't complain about the lack of a highway=* tag on a Right of Way. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
>Highway=no seems acceptable to me where a path is permanently physically >blocked by a building or such-like. We're not serving anyone by directing >people into wals. I do, however, disagree with its use to tag definitive >rights of way which are useable but which merely deviate from the route a >mapper mapped on the ground. Eg. I don't think a highway=no tag should be >added to a cross field definitive footpath just because a path round the >field has been mapped. In the case where a path has been permanently blocked, I would suggest disused:highway=footway/bridleway, abandonded:highway=footway or removed:highway=footway, depending on whether the path is still visible and whether the blockage would be relatively easy or difficult to remove. This seems to me to be much better than highway=no. Regards, Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 11:54, Adam Snape wrote: > I'd consider this particular proposed use of highway=no to mean "there is a > public highway here but there's no visible path on the ground" to be a > somewhat country-specific and counter-intuitive tagging practice. It's > certainly being suggested here as a solution to a country-specific issue > regarding the mapping of England and Wales' rights of way network. That's not precisely how I've been using highway=no or would advocate others to use it. I would only use highway=no in the case where there is a legal right of way that either is not or cannot be used on the ground. The "is not" might be a case where there is a regularly ploughed or cropped field and the cross-field path is never reinstated, so everyone always walks around the edge of the field instead. (Though if the cross-field line is usually passable, I'd possibly still use highway=path there.) The "cannot" might be a case where there's an impassible ditch or a house blocking the legal line (where higwhay=path would certainly not be appropriate). I'd be quite happy adding a highway=footway to e.g. a cross-field path even if there's no physical sign of it on the ground, as long as I'm confident it will be walked by users of the public footpath. In terms of how highway=no should be interpreted by data users, I would say highway=no means no more and no less than "there is not a (physical) highway here". I think the tagging is needed on objects (e.g. ways with designation=public_footpath) where you'd normally expect to find a highway=* tag, in order to distinguish this case from the case where it hasn't been established whether or what type of highway is present. (Some people will add rights of way lines to the map, and omit the highway tag until they've done a ground survey to determine what is there on the ground.) The main point I think, is that if you've tagged the definitive line of a Right of Way, and there's no suitable highway=* type for it, it's good to add highway=no, to confirm that's the case. This distinguishes that case from the case where the correct highway=* type still needs to be determined and added. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
On Tue, 5 May 2020, 13:26 Martin Wynne, wrote: > Is a "public right of way" a highway? > > I suggest not. It's a legal construct, similar to a boundary line. > > Perhaps it should be mapped as a separate way, sometimes sharing nodes > with a physical highway, sometimes not. > In English/Welsh law a highway is a right of passage, so a public right of way is a highway by definition. For OSM purposes? I don't know, but I've always assumed so. As discussed for practical reasons I wouldn't tag a completely inaccessible prow as a highway but I've never considered a physically worn path on the ground a requirement for being a highway=footway, bridleway etc. Adam > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
Is a "public right of way" a highway? I suggest not. It's a legal construct, similar to a boundary line. Perhaps it should be mapped as a separate way, sometimes sharing nodes with a physical highway, sometimes not. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
Hi, Highway=no seems acceptable to me where a path is permanently physically blocked by a building or such-like. We're not serving anyone by directing people into wals. I do, however, disagree with its use to tag definitive rights of way which are useable but which merely deviate from the route a mapper mapped on the ground. Eg. I don't think a highway=no tag should be added to a cross field definitive footpath just because a path round the field has been mapped. Kind regards, Adam On Tue, 5 May 2020, 12:35 Andy Townsend, wrote: > On 05/05/2020 11:53, Adam Snape wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > I'd consider this particular proposed use of highway=no to mean "there > > is a public highway here but there's no visible path on the ground" to > > be a somewhat country-specific and counter-intuitive tagging practice. > > It's certainly being suggested here as a solution to a > > country-specific issue regarding the mapping of England and Wales' > > rights of way network. > > For the avoidance of doubt, we already have "trail_visibility" as a > useful tag here. It's well used worldwide > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/trail_visibility#values and in > the UK https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/trail_visibility#values > and I (at least) use it to decide whether to render a path or not. > > That said, I'd be reluctant to use any other highway tag other than "no" > when there is a legal right of way but (say) someone's built a house > there so there is no physical access. By all means add > "designation=public_footpath" (with some sort of note) but please not > "highway=footway" (my apologies if no-one was suggesting this - it > wasn't 100% clear in the conversation). > > Personally I'd tend to just omit the highway tag for cases like this. I > wouldn't personally have a problem with people using "highway=no" for > them but I take Andy Allan's point earlier, and he has far more > experience dealing with how data consumers misuse OSM tags than I. > > On the "country specific" bit England and Wales are pretty unique with > their "public footpaths" etc. More civilised countries (like Scotland) > have something like "allemansrätten" in law. :) > > Best Regards, > > Andy > > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
On 05/05/2020 11:53, Adam Snape wrote: Hi Tom, I'd consider this particular proposed use of highway=no to mean "there is a public highway here but there's no visible path on the ground" to be a somewhat country-specific and counter-intuitive tagging practice. It's certainly being suggested here as a solution to a country-specific issue regarding the mapping of England and Wales' rights of way network. For the avoidance of doubt, we already have "trail_visibility" as a useful tag here. It's well used worldwide https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/trail_visibility#values and in the UK https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/trail_visibility#values and I (at least) use it to decide whether to render a path or not. That said, I'd be reluctant to use any other highway tag other than "no" when there is a legal right of way but (say) someone's built a house there so there is no physical access. By all means add "designation=public_footpath" (with some sort of note) but please not "highway=footway" (my apologies if no-one was suggesting this - it wasn't 100% clear in the conversation). Personally I'd tend to just omit the highway tag for cases like this. I wouldn't personally have a problem with people using "highway=no" for them but I take Andy Allan's point earlier, and he has far more experience dealing with how data consumers misuse OSM tags than I. On the "country specific" bit England and Wales are pretty unique with their "public footpaths" etc. More civilised countries (like Scotland) have something like "allemansrätten" in law. :) Best Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
Hi Tom, I'd consider this particular proposed use of highway=no to mean "there is a public highway here but there's no visible path on the ground" to be a somewhat country-specific and counter-intuitive tagging practice. It's certainly being suggested here as a solution to a country-specific issue regarding the mapping of England and Wales' rights of way network. Perhaps other countries do use highway=no in this manner but it isn't well documented and I could hardly blame consumers of OSM data from not interpreting it correctly. Kind regards, Adam On Tue, 5 May 2020, 09:59 Tom Hukins, wrote: > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 11:08:16PM +0100, Adam Snape wrote: > > Most data consumers won't be expecting this highly country-specific > > tagging of highway=no > > Why do you consider "highway=no" country-specific? Taginfo suggests > it's used across Europe and occasionally elsewhere: > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=no#map > > Tom > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 11:08:16PM +0100, Adam Snape wrote: > Most data consumers won't be expecting this highly country-specific > tagging of highway=no Why do you consider "highway=no" country-specific? Taginfo suggests it's used across Europe and occasionally elsewhere: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=no#map Tom ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
Hi, I'm a bit cautious about using highway=no for rights of way. I understand it where a definitive route is utterly impassible on the ground (eg. goes through a building) but elsewhere it seems to be suggested as a bit of a fudge to avoid having one right of way represented by two highways in OSM. I find that problematic for several reasons: - Most data consumers won't be expecting this highly country-specific tagging of highway=no so it's likely that end users will be using mapping products which lead them along informal shortcuts and diversions whilst completely omitting the actual line of the right of way. - We're tagging ways based on the presence of an alternative rather than the qualities of the way itself. For example, if a definitive path has no physical presence along its whole length but the original mapper has deviated from the definitive line for a short portion in the middle of the path's length, the definitive line would go from being tagged as a highway to being tagged as highway=no and back again despite no change in its appearance or accessibility, just the existence of an alternative route. - It means using highway=no to represent the legally-defined route of a highway which the public have a right to use just seems a little bizarre to me. In any case highway=no seems a particularly problematic thing to map remotely without actually being on the ground. We can't simply assume the non-existence of one route based upon the existence of an alternative. That one GPS-carrying osm mapper took one line across a moor which differs slightly from the definitive route doesn't mean we can say that the definitive line is any less legitimate. The fact that a mapper mapped a route round a field or farmyard doesn't mean that others don't follow the official line though it. Kind regards, Adam On Mon, 4 May 2020, 20:24 Andy Allan, wrote: > On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 20:24, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) > wrote: > > > > On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 14:13, nathan case wrote: > > > Thanks for your input Robert, the approach taken for routes not > following the definitive line makes sense - though does this lead to two > paths being rendered? Or does highway=no prevent this? I will also add the > fixme as Tony suggests. > > > > I'd be surprised if any map renders this as a highway. > > I've seen maps from a multi-billion-dollar-revenue organisation that > were rendering anything with a highway tag the same as their most > minor road style. So I think it was a case of rendering highway=* as a > small road, and then adding additional rules for specific highway > values to show them as larger roads. > > Very few people would make this mistake since it's a pretty obvious > problem that will show up quickly, but I do wonder how many people use > a specific list of road values and then draw everything else as paths. > In that case, there's a risk of highway=no showing up as a path. > > Thanks, > Andy > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 20:24, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > > On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 14:13, nathan case wrote: > > Thanks for your input Robert, the approach taken for routes not following > > the definitive line makes sense - though does this lead to two paths being > > rendered? Or does highway=no prevent this? I will also add the fixme as > > Tony suggests. > > I'd be surprised if any map renders this as a highway. I've seen maps from a multi-billion-dollar-revenue organisation that were rendering anything with a highway tag the same as their most minor road style. So I think it was a case of rendering highway=* as a small road, and then adding additional rules for specific highway values to show them as larger roads. Very few people would make this mistake since it's a pretty obvious problem that will show up quickly, but I do wonder how many people use a specific list of road values and then draw everything else as paths. In that case, there's a risk of highway=no showing up as a path. Thanks, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 14:13, nathan case wrote: > Thanks for your input Robert, the approach taken for routes not following the > definitive line makes sense - though does this lead to two paths being > rendered? Or does highway=no prevent this? I will also add the fixme as Tony > suggests. I'd be surprised if any map renders this as a highway. But the presence of a designation tag may result in a UK outdoor style adding some indication of the right of way there (perhaps like the green or pink dashes that OS uses on its maps). > > are you adding prow_ref=* tags to the Rights of Way, and if so what format > > are you using? > > I am. However, I can spot two issues: > > 1. (my fault) I'd not been including "LA" prefix to the prow_ref number. I > had assumed it stood for Lancashire but now realise it is actually for > Lancaster. I will do so from now on and will try and go back and edit my > edits (though there are a lot of them), unless there is another way? I think you were probably right about the "LA" the first time. It could well be the "LA" that's used by rowmaps.com as its county prefix for Lancashire. If any bulk corrections are needed, I may have some tools to be able to do them more efficiently -- do ask before spending lots of time on repetitive stuff like that. > 2. (kinda my fault) the map data I'd been using (the Mapbox overlay) does not > contain the public right of way type (i.e. the prow ref is simply given as LA > |1-2| 3). Tony's email has pointed me to the county's right of way map which > does contain this information (i.e 1-2-FP 3) so I will have to cross check > the data as I copy it over (an annoying additional step!). The format of the Right of Way numbers seems to depend on what map/data you look at. I think it would be highly desirable if we could agree on a single format to use throughout the whole of Lancashire in OpenStreetMap. I think the Lancashire online map at https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/ is a relatively recent innovation. (By the way, you shouldn't use that map for OSM mapping, as there's an OS-copyrighted backdrop, which you might inadvertently take information from, or use relative positioning information from.) The Council's online map uses "1-2-FP 3", while mapthepaths uses "1-2 3" (which comes from older GIS data Lancashire released and was given to rowmaps.com). On my tool, I've currently adopted the "[parish name] [type] [number]" format, which is the default if I don't select anything else. So what to standardise on? The "1-2" part in the numbers above is a parish code, which I think is probably an internal GIS thing within the council, rather than what the official legal documents use to refer to the paths. If you look at how they actually refer to the paths, e.g. in the DMMO register at http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/dmmoview/index.asp you'll see they almost always refer to them by the parish name, type and number. There's some discrepancy over whether a Public Footpath is PF or FP (or occasionally PFP). But on the computer-generated order maps, it's always FP, with BW used for Bridleway and BOAT for Byways Open to All Traffic. I couldn't find a Restricted Byway on a map. The parish names (rather than ID numbers) are also a lot easier for humans to deal with when mapping. Based on the above, my preference would be to agree to use the "[parish name] [type] [number]" format. But if it's decided to use something else, I'll happily change my tool to whatever is decided. (Although I can only set one format per county, so it will need to be county-wide.) Hopefully Nick will be able / willing to do the same on mapthepaths. Best wishes, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
On 04/05/2020 14:13, nathan case wrote: Thanks for your input Robert, the approach taken for routes not following the definitive line makes sense - though does this lead to two paths being rendered? Or does highway=no prevent this? I will also add the fixme as Tony suggests. It depends on the renderer, but I'd be surprised if many maps rendered "highway=no". A quick overpass search finds https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/712060246 . None of the 4 map layers at osm.org show that. The effect on a renderer designed to should "designation" is this: https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16=54.01187=-2.20735 that shows the designated PF in red and the "non-official" part of the route in grey. Best Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
Thanks for your input Robert, the approach taken for routes not following the definitive line makes sense - though does this lead to two paths being rendered? Or does highway=no prevent this? I will also add the fixme as Tony suggests. > are you adding prow_ref=* tags to the Rights of Way, and if so what format > are you using? I am. However, I can spot two issues: 1. (my fault) I'd not been including "LA" prefix to the prow_ref number. I had assumed it stood for Lancashire but now realise it is actually for Lancaster. I will do so from now on and will try and go back and edit my edits (though there are a lot of them), unless there is another way? 2. (kinda my fault) the map data I'd been using (the Mapbox overlay) does not contain the public right of way type (i.e. the prow ref is simply given as LA |1-2| 3). Tony's email has pointed me to the county's right of way map which does contain this information (i.e 1-2-FP 3) so I will have to cross check the data as I copy it over (an annoying additional step!). Many thanks. -Original Message- From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 12:41 PM To: talk-gb Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality As a general principle, I think we should certainly map both (a) any physical paths on the ground and (b) the legal Definitive Line (though not necessarily as a highway if it isn't one). These might be separate ways if the two line differ, though they'd normally be one and the same. It would also be useful to map (c) any required deviations from the definitive line in order to use a Right of Way, whether or not there's a physical path in evidence there, in order to maintain a route-able network or ways. Further details of the tagging I use in various cases can be found at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Tagging#Routes_not_following_the_Definitive_Line By the way Nathan, are you adding prow_ref=* tags to the Rights of Way, and if so what format are you using? If you're mapping Rights of Way in Lancashire, you might be interested in my tools at https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/lancs/ Best wishes, Robert. On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 11:29, nathan case wrote: > I’m using the very helpful work Mapbox tiles (from Rob Nickerson’s email on > 11 Nov 2019) to map Lancashire’s public rights of way (PROW) under the > council’s open data licence. [snip] > In cases where the mapped route deviates substantially from the PROW – should > I keep the mapped route or edit to fit the PROW? > > The mapped route could be an error (even with GPS trails) as the original > mapper may have taken the incorrect route. Quite often this is the original > mapper being polite and walking around the edge of a farmer’s field even when > the PROW is straight through the field. Legally, the route is through the > field and not around it. Or it could be that the way is not well signposted > and the mapper has had to guess the way (a big issue across Lancashire’s > moorlands/heathlands for the not so well trodden paths). > > Equally, the mapped route could represent the actual “on the ground” route > i.e. the route shown by PROW vector may be impassable. It’s also not > guaranteed that the vector files are correct (as they’re only copies from the > definitive map). > > Where the PROW goes through a building/object – should I map the route as > defined in the PROW, or re-route the PROW around the object? > > Unless there is an error in the PROW vectors, the building shouldn’t be built > on the PROW – though it does seem to happen a lot, especially with farm > buildings. Obviously the path can no longer run through the building – > despite it’s legal status. When arm chair mapping (as is only practical with > such a large data set) should we instead show the best alternative route? Or > go with the legal route and allow people following the route on the ground to > find the best route and edit in future? -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
Hi Nathan I've done some work on Chorley PROW's recently. Populated using the style Chorley FP 1; Lancaster area uses the numbering convention in MapThePaths eg 1-1 23. Fortunately I know the area well having lived in the vicinity for 30 years so I can do armchair mapping with some knowledge. Robert Whittaker has responded to you and provided the link to progress/lancs which I have been using - If find it very useful, especially as it checks against format style of Chorley FP 1. When I have found PROW which can't be walked I am making a note, I have started a conversation with the PROW team at Lancs CC about Chorley FP 1 and Chorley FP 9 which can't be walked because they have build a road and bridge over them. On that particular section I have not placed the PROW because the path does not exist and I feel that a Definitive Map change is required. However Lancs CC seem to be very reactive about map changes. I'm think that FIXME's could be useful in the case where path can't be mapped to the actual Definitive Line I also find the https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/ to be useful to assist on defining the PROW, it maintains the path reference in sight to help with reference changes particularly at parish boundaries or path joins. Where it goes through a building I would divert where appropriate, add a FIXME and I would save the information to contact Lancs CC so that the Definitive Map can be checked; as we only have 6 years to get these things right I believe that Lancs CC should be encouraged to do the right thing. Regards Tony Shield TonyS999 On 04/05/2020 11:27, nathan case wrote: Hi all, I’m using the very helpful work Mapbox tiles (from Rob Nickerson’s email on 11 Nov 2019) to map Lancashire’s public rights of way (PROW) under the council’s open data licence. Generally, any existing paths already marked on the map fit quite well with the vector files of the PROWs. So if the already mapped route lies near enough to the PROW line in the vector file, I leave the route as is and just add the missing tags (e.g. designation and prow_ref). However; 1. In cases where the mapped route deviates substantially from the PROW – should I keep the mapped route or edit to fit the PROW? The mapped route could be an error (even with GPS trails) as the original mapper may have taken the incorrect route. Quite often this is the original mapper being polite and walking around the edge of a farmer’s field even when the PROW is straight through the field. Legally, the route is through the field and not around it. Or it could be that the way is not well signposted and the mapper has had to guess the way (a big issue across Lancashire’s moorlands/heathlands for the not so well trodden paths). Equally, the mapped route could represent the actual “on the ground” route i.e. the route shown by PROW vector may be impassable. It’s also not guaranteed that the vector files are correct (as they’re only copies from the definitive map). 2. Where the PROW goes through a building/object – should I map the route as defined in the PROW, or re-route the PROW around the object? Unless there is an error in the PROW vectors, the building shouldn’t be built on the PROW – though it does seem to happen a lot, especially with farm buildings. Obviously the path can no longer run through the building – despite it’s legal status. When arm chair mapping (as is only practical with such a large data set) should we instead show the best alternative route? Or go with the legal route and allow people following the route on the ground to find the best route and edit in future? Thanks for any insights! ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
As a general principle, I think we should certainly map both (a) any physical paths on the ground and (b) the legal Definitive Line (though not necessarily as a highway if it isn't one). These might be separate ways if the two line differ, though they'd normally be one and the same. It would also be useful to map (c) any required deviations from the definitive line in order to use a Right of Way, whether or not there's a physical path in evidence there, in order to maintain a route-able network or ways. Further details of the tagging I use in various cases can be found at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Tagging#Routes_not_following_the_Definitive_Line By the way Nathan, are you adding prow_ref=* tags to the Rights of Way, and if so what format are you using? If you're mapping Rights of Way in Lancashire, you might be interested in my tools at https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/lancs/ Best wishes, Robert. On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 11:29, nathan case wrote: > I’m using the very helpful work Mapbox tiles (from Rob Nickerson’s email on > 11 Nov 2019) to map Lancashire’s public rights of way (PROW) under the > council’s open data licence. [snip] > In cases where the mapped route deviates substantially from the PROW – should > I keep the mapped route or edit to fit the PROW? > > The mapped route could be an error (even with GPS trails) as the original > mapper may have taken the incorrect route. Quite often this is the original > mapper being polite and walking around the edge of a farmer’s field even when > the PROW is straight through the field. Legally, the route is through the > field and not around it. Or it could be that the way is not well signposted > and the mapper has had to guess the way (a big issue across Lancashire’s > moorlands/heathlands for the not so well trodden paths). > > Equally, the mapped route could represent the actual “on the ground” route > i.e. the route shown by PROW vector may be impassable. It’s also not > guaranteed that the vector files are correct (as they’re only copies from the > definitive map). > > Where the PROW goes through a building/object – should I map the route as > defined in the PROW, or re-route the PROW around the object? > > Unless there is an error in the PROW vectors, the building shouldn’t be built > on the PROW – though it does seem to happen a lot, especially with farm > buildings. Obviously the path can no longer run through the building – > despite it’s legal status. When arm chair mapping (as is only practical with > such a large data set) should we instead show the best alternative route? Or > go with the legal route and allow people following the route on the ground to > find the best route and edit in future? -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
Hi all, I'm using the very helpful work Mapbox tiles (from Rob Nickerson's email on 11 Nov 2019) to map Lancashire's public rights of way (PROW) under the council's open data licence. Generally, any existing paths already marked on the map fit quite well with the vector files of the PROWs. So if the already mapped route lies near enough to the PROW line in the vector file, I leave the route as is and just add the missing tags (e.g. designation and prow_ref). However; 1. In cases where the mapped route deviates substantially from the PROW - should I keep the mapped route or edit to fit the PROW? The mapped route could be an error (even with GPS trails) as the original mapper may have taken the incorrect route. Quite often this is the original mapper being polite and walking around the edge of a farmer's field even when the PROW is straight through the field. Legally, the route is through the field and not around it. Or it could be that the way is not well signposted and the mapper has had to guess the way (a big issue across Lancashire's moorlands/heathlands for the not so well trodden paths). Equally, the mapped route could represent the actual "on the ground" route i.e. the route shown by PROW vector may be impassable. It's also not guaranteed that the vector files are correct (as they're only copies from the definitive map). 1. Where the PROW goes through a building/object - should I map the route as defined in the PROW, or re-route the PROW around the object? Unless there is an error in the PROW vectors, the building shouldn't be built on the PROW - though it does seem to happen a lot, especially with farm buildings. Obviously the path can no longer run through the building - despite it's legal status. When arm chair mapping (as is only practical with such a large data set) should we instead show the best alternative route? Or go with the legal route and allow people following the route on the ground to find the best route and edit in future? Thanks for any insights! ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
