Re: [Talk-GB] Propose automated edit to update NAPTAN data in the west mids

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Matthijs,

Wherever possible the names in NaPTAN should match what is on the flag or 
shelter. There are however some instances where this is not possible or 
desirable.

For instance, the stop might carry a historic name such as for a long closed 
pub which has been updated in data but not on the ground. Or perhaps the name 
is a compound name (often of the "Main Street / Side Road" variety) where this 
is better held as two separate fields in NaPTAN.

But in general any discrepancies should be queried with the data owner who is 
normally the County or Unitary council. In West Midlands it is the old Centro / 
new TfWM. I have contacts there, as obviously does Brian, but I ought to check 
that they are happy for me to post their email address on the list for all to 
use.

Regards
Stuart


On 5 Feb 2017, at 19:35, Matthijs Melissen 
> wrote:

On 3 February 2017 at 19:29, Stuart Reynolds 
> 
wrote:
Also, there is often some confusion about what name goes into which fields - 
people will insist on compounding names, for example, because that's what their 
consuming system wants, rather than getting the consumer to read the data 
properly. But that's too much to go into here, and if reviewing the names is in 
scope then I would be happy to offer to help. One of my other "hats" is as the 
Public Transport Data Standards Advisor / Expert for DfT, which includes 
advising on NAPTAN.

Hi Stuart,

Great to have your support. I noticed that there are a few stops in the West 
Midlands where the name in Naptan doesn't match the name on the flag 
(unfortunately I don't remember by heart which ones). This means the visual 
announcement in the announcement in the bus (and the information in online 
timetables) is different from the name on the flag, so from a usability 
perspective it would make sense to fix this. Is there any process of reporting 
situations like that?

-- Matthijs
___
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] Propose automated edit to update NAPTAN data in the west mids

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 3 February 2017 at 19:29, Stuart Reynolds <
stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk> wrote:

> Also, there is often some confusion about what name goes into which fields
> - people will insist on compounding names, for example, because that’s what
> their consuming system wants, rather than getting the consumer to read the
> data properly. But that’s too much to go into here, and if reviewing the
> names is in scope then I would be happy to offer to help. One of my other
> “hats" is as the Public Transport Data Standards Advisor / Expert for DfT,
> which includes advising on NAPTAN.
>
> Hi Stuart,

Great to have your support. I noticed that there are a few stops in the
West Midlands where the name in Naptan doesn't match the name on the flag
(unfortunately I don't remember by heart which ones). This means the visual
announcement in the announcement in the bus (and the information in online
timetables) is different from the name on the flag, so from a usability
perspective it would make sense to fix this. Is there any process of
reporting situations like that?

-- Matthijs
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Propose automated edit to update NAPTAN data in the west mids

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi Brian,

Great to see this going forward! Some technicalities:

> Process overview

This is not very clear to me. I think this section either needs more
detail, or less (with the detail moved to the individual steps). Also, what
do you mean with opening a csv in JOSM?

> Each chunk will create a separate changeset in OSM

This is not correct, all chunks will be uploaded within one changeset. See
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Action/Upload for how uploading in
chunks in JOSM work.

On the process detail: what will happen with current bus stops in OSM that
do not have Naptan tags? Perhaps it would be best to add the NaptanCode (or
AtcoCode) manually for these stops first? Can't be too many of them.

"Use a proximity script to determine presence of duplicates. How to handle
duplicates?" I don't think we need a proximity script or anything like
that, we can just do matching on NaptanCode or AtcoCode. So: for all bus
stops, if there is a bus stop with a matching NaptanCode already in OSM,
update that bus stop; if not, create a new bus stop.

The Naptan database contains abbreviations like Rd, Ln, St. Will we leave
those, or are we going to expand them into Road, Lane, Street etc, as is
usually done in OSM? The bus stops in West Midlands have the abbreviations
written out as well.

In general, I think it would be good to have some more information in the
process detail before going ahead - but I'm sure this will sort itself out
over the next weeks.

Good luck with the import, it's a great step forward!

-- Matthijs

On 3 February 2017 at 18:52, Brian Prangle  wrote:

> Hi everyone
>
> We have an opportunity to work with the regional transport authority TfWM
> to update this data which is 8 years old and partially edited by OSM users.
> They have assigned 2 developers to work on this and I'm spending a half day
> each week working with them.
>
> We've agreed and discussed this in our mappa mercia group and also
> contacted a prolific local public transport OSM editor who's not part of
> our group.
>
> In line with the automated edits policy there's a wikipage
> 
> with full details
>
> Comments welcome as this exercise might be useful elswhere as the state of
> NAPTAN data will be in a similar state
>
> regards
>
> Brian
>
> ___
> 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] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

[SK53]

Hi Rob,

I actually had the impenetrable barrier case 3 weeks ago: a stile deep in a
hedge & no sign of any path on the other side. It is in Leics CC data & a
path is shown on old 1:25k maps, so again I've added it without any highway
tag.

In Carmarthenshire the state of the paths was such that even signed ones
weren't worth adding to OSM: far too many disappeared through people's
gardens or petered out a few tens of metres from the road.

Jerry

On 5 February 2017 at 18:21, Rob  wrote:

> Thanks to Colin and Jerry for your responses.
>
> Although I understand and agree with what you're saying Colin, I probably
> didn't make it clear enough in my attempt to be concise that it's the
> representation on OSM that I've got queries about as I'm fairly au fait
> with the law on this.  I'll refrain from tagging any sections of a path as
> a PROW even if it's only a little bit out.
> Thanks for the link to the government guide, which I wasn't aware of.  The
> Ramblers Association/Open Spaces Society's so-called Blue Book
> http://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/rights-of-way-law-in-
> england-and-wales/the-blue-book.aspx is also worth knowing about.
>
> I think what I'll do is show the routes that are actually used, and where
> they deviate from the definitive route I'll tag them as permissive.
> However, even that isn't straightforward as any routes marked out by the
> farmer (as with a cereal crop) can vary from year to year, or not be marked
> at all.  When not marked an arbitrary route can often be seen or walkers
> might (as an example you gave, Jerry) use the field edge to reduce damage
> to crops.  The definitive route may be the only constant in such cases
> (except if legally changed).  I had it in mind that in some cases it
> could be appropriate to show both the PROW and the route that's normally
> used, so it's encouraging to see that you've done this.  I won't always
> apply this principle, though, as I don't think it's right somehow to show a
> PROW going through a house even when it does!
>
> Similarly, I'll have to think about whether to show a PROW going through
> an impenetrable hedge when there's an alternative route nearby.  If I do,
> I'll tag the appropriate node as a barrier with a suitable value.
>
> An associated issue is where a path is frequently obstructed or made
> difficult to walk by undergrowth and there's no alternative route due to
> barbed wire for example.  I guess one solution may be to show it but
> add the tag 'barrier:obstruction' in conjunction with a 'note' tag.
> (Thoughts?)
>
> I think I'll take each case on its merits as at the moment I can't see a
> 'rule' that will be sensible for everything.
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* SK53 
> *To:* Rob 
> *Cc:* Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 05, 2017 3:26 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Generally the ideal is a path followed & mapped as it appears on the
> ground, with the status (designation) of the path based on waymarkers and
> fingerposts. This will inevitably mean that in places the mapped path does
> not follow the line shown on the definitive map: most usually because
> following the correct line over a field is not easy. (I've relatively
> recently mapped a bridleway based
> on the lines between waymarks which does not accord
> 
> with the line provided by Leicestershire CC).
>
> Frequently, the actual formal line of a PRoW may divert from the natural
> line on the ground and this will only be apparent by close comparison with
> the definitive map data. A good example
>  is a path which follows a
> track to a sail-less windmill just S of Ockley in Surrey, the definitive
> line actually follows the hedgerow. This was completely non-obvious on the
> ground: no waymarks etc. It is likely that anyone following the path on the
> ground would make the same assumption that we did, that the path follows
> the track and then leads down directly to the hedge to the E. In this case
> the diversion is minor, non-obvious (and if it's been followed without let
> or hindrance for 20 years is a de facto PRoW anyway). So for reasons of
> practicality it still makes sense to map it with the designation. Of course
> if also makes sense to re-survey and double check for waymarks etc. on the
> line from Surrey CC. (I've actually done this closer to Capel station &
> failed to find suitable waymarks on a second survey for this path
> ).
>
> In other cases it's much clearer. Around Scalford at our meeting 3 weeks
> ago I came across several paths where the waymarks strongly suggested the
> PRoW directly crossed the field, but there were no signs on the ground. In

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

[Rob]

Thanks to Colin and Jerry for your responses.

Although I understand and agree with what you're saying Colin, I probably 
didn't make it clear enough in my attempt to be concise that it's the 
representation on OSM that I've got queries about as I'm fairly au fait with 
the law on this.  I'll refrain from tagging any sections of a path as a PROW 
even if it's only a little bit out.
Thanks for the link to the government guide, which I wasn't aware of.  The 
Ramblers Association/Open Spaces Society's so-called Blue Book 
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/rights-of-way-law-in-england-and-wales/the-blue-book.aspx
 is also worth knowing about.

I think what I'll do is show the routes that are actually used, and where they 
deviate from the definitive route I'll tag them as permissive.  However, even 
that isn't straightforward as any routes marked out by the farmer (as with a 
cereal crop) can vary from year to year, or not be marked at all.  When not 
marked an arbitrary route can often be seen or walkers might (as an example you 
gave, Jerry) use the field edge to reduce damage to crops.  The definitive 
route may be the only constant in such cases (except if legally changed).  I 
had it in mind that in some cases it could be appropriate to show both the PROW 
and the route that's normally used, so it's encouraging to see that you've done 
this.  I won't always apply this principle, though, as I don't think it's right 
somehow to show a PROW going through a house even when it does!

Similarly, I'll have to think about whether to show a PROW going through an 
impenetrable hedge when there's an alternative route nearby.  If I do, I'll tag 
the appropriate node as a barrier with a suitable value.

An associated issue is where a path is frequently obstructed or made difficult 
to walk by undergrowth and there's no alternative route due to barbed wire for 
example.  I guess one solution may be to show it but add the tag 
'barrier:obstruction' in conjunction with a 'note' tag.  (Thoughts?)

I think I'll take each case on its merits as at the moment I can't see a 'rule' 
that will be sensible for everything.

Cheers,
Rob

  - Original Message -
  From: SK53
  To: Rob
  Cc: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
  Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 3:26 PM
  Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.


  Hi Rob,


  Generally the ideal is a path followed & mapped as it appears on the ground, 
with the status (designation) of the path based on waymarkers and fingerposts. 
This will inevitably mean that in places the mapped path does not follow the 
line shown on the definitive map: most usually because following the correct 
line over a field is not easy. (I've relatively recently mapped a bridleway 
based on the lines between waymarks which does not accord with the line 
provided by Leicestershire CC).

  Frequently, the actual formal line of a PRoW may divert from the natural line 
on the ground and this will only be apparent by close comparison with the 
definitive map data. A good example is a path which follows a track to a 
sail-less windmill just S of Ockley in Surrey, the definitive line actually 
follows the hedgerow. This was completely non-obvious on the ground: no 
waymarks etc. It is likely that anyone following the path on the ground would 
make the same assumption that we did, that the path follows the track and then 
leads down directly to the hedge to the E. In this case the diversion is minor, 
non-obvious (and if it's been followed without let or hindrance for 20 years is 
a de facto PRoW anyway). So for reasons of practicality it still makes sense to 
map it with the designation. Of course if also makes sense to re-survey and 
double check for waymarks etc. on the line from Surrey CC. (I've actually done 
this closer to Capel station & failed to find suitable waymarks on a second 
survey for this path).


  In other cases it's much clearer. Around Scalford at our meeting 3 weeks ago 
I came across several paths where the waymarks strongly suggested the PRoW 
directly crossed the field, but there were no signs on the ground. In general 
paths followed the headland round the field. In these cases I've marked the 
actual visible paths permissive and the line of the PRoW just with the 
designation tags.


  If mapping directly from OGL PRoW data the latter is actually all that one 
can infer. Assuming that a path or track exists because there is PRoW is an 
error: other evidence is needed. I'm aware of several short footpaths in 
Nottinghamshire which aren't signed by the County Council because they dont 
lead anywhere (e.g., one in Hicking and one off Nottingham Road, Trowell).


  Note also that the GIS data provided is always clearly stated NOT to be 
definitive. Only consultation with the description and the original definition 
map can be relied upon.


  Regards,


  Jerry



  On 5 February 2017 at 13:03, Rob  wrote:

Hi,

I'm a relative newcomer to 

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

[SK53]

Hi Rob,

Generally the ideal is a path followed & mapped as it appears on the
ground, with the status (designation) of the path based on waymarkers and
fingerposts. This will inevitably mean that in places the mapped path does
not follow the line shown on the definitive map: most usually because
following the correct line over a field is not easy. (I've relatively
recently mapped a bridleway based
on the lines between waymarks which does not accord

with the line provided by Leicestershire CC).

Frequently, the actual formal line of a PRoW may divert from the natural
line on the ground and this will only be apparent by close comparison with
the definitive map data. A good example
 is a path which follows a
track to a sail-less windmill just S of Ockley in Surrey, the definitive
line actually follows the hedgerow. This was completely non-obvious on the
ground: no waymarks etc. It is likely that anyone following the path on the
ground would make the same assumption that we did, that the path follows
the track and then leads down directly to the hedge to the E. In this case
the diversion is minor, non-obvious (and if it's been followed without let
or hindrance for 20 years is a de facto PRoW anyway). So for reasons of
practicality it still makes sense to map it with the designation. Of course
if also makes sense to re-survey and double check for waymarks etc. on the
line from Surrey CC. (I've actually done this closer to Capel station &
failed to find suitable waymarks on a second survey for this path
).

In other cases it's much clearer. Around Scalford at our meeting 3 weeks
ago I came across several paths where the waymarks strongly suggested the
PRoW directly crossed the field, but there were no signs on the ground. In
general paths followed the headland round the field. In these cases I've
marked the actual visible paths 
permissive and the line  of the
PRoW just with the designation tags.

If mapping directly from OGL PRoW data the latter is actually all that one
can infer. Assuming that a path or track exists because there is PRoW is an
error: other evidence is needed. I'm aware of several short footpaths in
Nottinghamshire which aren't signed by the County Council because they dont
lead anywhere (e.g., one in Hicking and one off Nottingham Road, Trowell).

Note also that the GIS data provided is always clearly stated NOT to be
definitive. Only consultation with the description and the original
definition map can be relied upon.

Regards,

Jerry

On 5 February 2017 at 13:03, Rob  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm a relative newcomer to contributing to OSM but trying to get to grips
> as quickly as possible with the consensus on various topics, one of which
> is PROWs.  The emails below raise questions I've had for a while.
>
> I'm hoping for guidance as paths can include these two types:
> 1.  Definitive PROWs (but subject to subsequent Orders - whether
> deviations or extinguishments)
> 2.  De facto paths generally thought to be PROWs.
> Most of the time the two are coincident.
>
> Where they're not coincident, is it the case that we should map the de
> facto paths?
> In such a situation should the de facto paths be tagged as PROWs and/or
> given the highway authority's reference?
> Where there's a difference should we also map the definitive PROWs in some
> way (even if they go through a private house - I'm not making that up)?
>
> I realise there's an important but separate issue of copyright if the
> route can be determined only from the definitive map (based on the OS map).
>
> Regards,
> Rob
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> *From:* Colin Smale 
> *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 05, 2017 11:33 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.
>
> My understanding is that the definitive data held by the appropriate local
> authority is exactly that, definitive. There may be legitimate errors in
> there of course, but where a path has been willfully and legally rerouted,
> that is a different type of error - lack of currency, i.e. an order has
> been made to reroute the path but they haven't yet got round to updating
> the Definitive Map and the Definitive Statement.
>
> Any paths that no longer follow the official route (as per the DM/DS)
> should not be tagged as PROW and probably as access=permissive unless they
> go across otherwise public land. The official route is still a public right
> of way, it's just no longer usable as such.
>
> Do you have a way of feeding these discrepancies back to Somerset CC, to
> establish whether they are true errors, lack of currency or illegal
> reroutings?
>
> 

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

[Rob]

Hi,
I've just read Colin's reply again - more thoroughly this time!  I should have 
made it clear that I was thinking of paths where there's only a slight 
discrepancy - up to 40m say.  For example where there's no longer a stile 
through a hedge because everyone heads for the nearest gate.  Or because people 
walk in a straight line from A to be across a field instead of following the 
curved PROW.  In such a situation is it appropriate to not tag anything as a 
PROW or to mark the de facto path as a PROW?  Sorry for any repetition.
Rob

  - Original Message -
  From: Rob
  To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
  Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 1:03 PM
  Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.


  Hi,

  I'm a relative newcomer to contributing to OSM but trying to get to grips as 
quickly as possible with the consensus on various topics, one of which is 
PROWs.  The emails below raise questions I've had for a while.

  I'm hoping for guidance as paths can include these two types:
  1.  Definitive PROWs (but subject to subsequent Orders - whether deviations 
or extinguishments)
  2.  De facto paths generally thought to be PROWs.
  Most of the time the two are coincident.

  Where they're not coincident, is it the case that we should map the de facto 
paths?
  In such a situation should the de facto paths be tagged as PROWs and/or given 
the highway authority's reference?
  Where there's a difference should we also map the definitive PROWs in some 
way (even if they go through a private house - I'm not making that up)?

  I realise there's an important but separate issue of copyright if the route 
can be determined only from the definitive map (based on the OS map).

  Regards,
  Rob



  - Original Message -
From: Colin Smale
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.


My understanding is that the definitive data held by the appropriate local 
authority is exactly that, definitive. There may be legitimate errors in there 
of course, but where a path has been willfully and legally rerouted, that is a 
different type of error - lack of currency, i.e. an order has been made to 
reroute the path but they haven't yet got round to updating the Definitive Map 
and the Definitive Statement.

Any paths that no longer follow the official route (as per the DM/DS) 
should not be tagged as PROW and probably as access=permissive unless they go 
across otherwise public land. The official route is still a public right of 
way, it's just no longer usable as such.

Do you have a way of feeding these discrepancies back to Somerset CC, to 
establish whether they are true errors, lack of currency or illegal reroutings?


http://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/rights-of-way-law-in-england-and-wales/definitive-maps-explained.aspx

--colin





On 2017-02-05 11:19, Dave F wrote:

  Hi

  If you're using local authority data/os open data to map paths, as a 
contributor current is in Somerset, please don't assume their layout 
corresponds with what's on the ground or is more accurate than what's mapped in 
OSM. These official ways are often outdated, being based on redundant features 
such as grubbed up fences & hedgerows. Gate & stiles occasionally get moved. 
These tweaks often don't make it back to the Definitive Map.

  Please verify using this data doesn't make OSM less accurate.

  Cheers
  DaveF

  ---
  This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
  https://www.avast.com/antivirus


  ___
  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




--
  This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com





--


  ___
  Talk-GB mailing list
  Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

[Rob]

Hi,

I'm a relative newcomer to contributing to OSM but trying to get to grips as 
quickly as possible with the consensus on various topics, one of which is 
PROWs.  The emails below raise questions I've had for a while.

I'm hoping for guidance as paths can include these two types:
1.  Definitive PROWs (but subject to subsequent Orders - whether deviations or 
extinguishments)
2.  De facto paths generally thought to be PROWs.
Most of the time the two are coincident.

Where they're not coincident, is it the case that we should map the de facto 
paths?
In such a situation should the de facto paths be tagged as PROWs and/or given 
the highway authority's reference?
Where there's a difference should we also map the definitive PROWs in some way 
(even if they go through a private house - I'm not making that up)?

I realise there's an important but separate issue of copyright if the route can 
be determined only from the definitive map (based on the OS map).

Regards,
Rob



- Original Message -
  From: Colin Smale
  To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
  Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 11:33 AM
  Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.


  My understanding is that the definitive data held by the appropriate local 
authority is exactly that, definitive. There may be legitimate errors in there 
of course, but where a path has been willfully and legally rerouted, that is a 
different type of error - lack of currency, i.e. an order has been made to 
reroute the path but they haven't yet got round to updating the Definitive Map 
and the Definitive Statement.

  Any paths that no longer follow the official route (as per the DM/DS) should 
not be tagged as PROW and probably as access=permissive unless they go across 
otherwise public land. The official route is still a public right of way, it's 
just no longer usable as such.

  Do you have a way of feeding these discrepancies back to Somerset CC, to 
establish whether they are true errors, lack of currency or illegal reroutings?

  
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/rights-of-way-law-in-england-and-wales/definitive-maps-explained.aspx

  --colin





  On 2017-02-05 11:19, Dave F wrote:

Hi

If you're using local authority data/os open data to map paths, as a 
contributor current is in Somerset, please don't assume their layout 
corresponds with what's on the ground or is more accurate than what's mapped in 
OSM. These official ways are often outdated, being based on redundant features 
such as grubbed up fences & hedgerows. Gate & stiles occasionally get moved. 
These tweaks often don't make it back to the Definitive Map.

Please verify using this data doesn't make OSM less accurate.

Cheers
DaveF

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
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


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

[Colin Smale]

My understanding is that the definitive data held by the appropriate
local authority is exactly that, definitive. There may be legitimate
errors in there of course, but where a path has been willfully and
legally rerouted, that is a different type of error - lack of currency,
i.e. an order has been made to reroute the path but they haven't yet got
round to updating the Definitive Map and the Definitive Statement. 

Any paths that no longer follow the official route (as per the DM/DS)
should not be tagged as PROW and probably as access=permissive unless
they go across otherwise public land. The official route is still a
public right of way, it's just no longer usable as such. 

Do you have a way of feeding these discrepancies back to Somerset CC, to
establish whether they are true errors, lack of currency or illegal
reroutings? 

http://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/rights-of-way-law-in-england-and-wales/definitive-maps-explained.aspx


--colin

On 2017-02-05 11:19, Dave F wrote:

> Hi
> 
> If you're using local authority data/os open data to map paths, as a 
> contributor current is in Somerset, please don't assume their layout 
> corresponds with what's on the ground or is more accurate than what's mapped 
> in OSM. These official ways are often outdated, being based on redundant 
> features such as grubbed up fences & hedgerows. Gate & stiles occasionally 
> get moved. These tweaks often don't make it back to the Definitive Map.
> 
> Please verify using this data doesn't make OSM less accurate.
> 
> Cheers
> DaveF
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> ___
> 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

[Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

[Dave F]

Hi

If you're using local authority data/os open data to map paths, as a 
contributor current is in Somerset, please don't assume their layout 
corresponds with what's on the ground or is more accurate than what's 
mapped in OSM. These official ways are often outdated, being based on 
redundant features such as grubbed up fences & hedgerows. Gate & stiles 
occasionally get moved. These tweaks often don't make it back to the 
Definitive Map.


Please verify using this data doesn't make OSM less accurate.

Cheers
DaveF

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb