[Talk-GB] Resurrecting the 'find the missing paths for 2026' project
David wrote: >In other threads, I sense quite a strong lobby for only mapping rights of way that are so marked on the ground and ignoring any designation that only appears in a map. That's news to me! Given that you say "strong" I must assume that you refer to something other than talk-gb(?). For sure it is preferable to have a sign on the ground but I don't agree that a Local Authorities failure to signpost a right of way is justification for us to ignore such an important piece of information. We have some fantastic supplementary sources of (open data) information that many within the OpenStreetMap community have fought hard for. Let's use them - I know I do and will continue to do so :-) By the way, if you extend your logic beyond rights of way then we'd have to delete lots of data which is still based upon tracing the old NPE maps and downgrade/delete a whole swathe of data which is wholly or partly based in aerial imagery. As such you can see why I disagree wholeheartedly with your interpretation. Yes to real surveys and real signposts as much as possible but no to "cutting off our nose to spite our face". Best regards Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Resurrecting the 'find the missing paths for 2026' project
The main aim, though, of this project is to investigate, using the historical maps, historical rights of way for the point of view of gathering evidence to re-open them before 2026. A possible side-effect of this is to locate new paths to map for OSM. Such paths would not, of course, be tagged with a designation (unless they are legally re-opened) but if there is evidence of use, they could certainly be added as a highway=footway at the very least. Nick From: David Woolley Sent: 01 October 2019 13:56 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Resurrecting the 'find the missing paths for 2026' project On 30/09/2019 18:25, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > I made a start on this about a year ago, here's a quck mock-up showing > council data in colours and OSM paths shown in white as a 'tippex' > effect. This allows the identification of historical 'F.P' footpaths on > the historical maps which do not correspond either to current council > RoWs or current OSM paths, and thus would be candidates for > investigation to see if the path is in a usable state or there is > evidence of use. Such paths are not going to have finger boards with "public footpath" on them. In other threads, I sense quite a strong lobby for only mapping rights of way that are so marked on the ground and ignoring any designation that only appears in a map. As such, you will end up with at best a permissive status recorded on OSM. Even that is actually likely to be subjective. ___ 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] Resurrecting the 'find the missing paths for 2026' project
On 30/09/2019 18:25, Nick Whitelegg wrote: I made a start on this about a year ago, here's a quck mock-up showing council data in colours and OSM paths shown in white as a 'tippex' effect. This allows the identification of historical 'F.P' footpaths on the historical maps which do not correspond either to current council RoWs or current OSM paths, and thus would be candidates for investigation to see if the path is in a usable state or there is evidence of use. Such paths are not going to have finger boards with "public footpath" on them. In other threads, I sense quite a strong lobby for only mapping rights of way that are so marked on the ground and ignoring any designation that only appears in a map. As such, you will end up with at best a permissive status recorded on OSM. Even that is actually likely to be subjective. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Resurrecting the 'find the missing paths for 2026' project
See https://www.ramblers.org.uk/get-involved/campaign-with-us/dont-lose-your-way-2026.aspx https://www.oss.org.uk/what-do-we-fight-for/footpaths-rights-of-way/the-deregulation-act/ Historically we have been able to claim lost rights of way by providing user evidence and have them added to the definitive map. However after 2026 we loose that ancient right and time is running out fast. Phil (trigpoint) On Tuesday, 1 October 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > 30 Sep 2019, 19:25 by nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk: > > > A quick reminder - we have until 2026 to record historical rights of way > > which have fallen out of use in recent times > > > Question from an uninformed foreigner - > why specifically 2026 -- Sent from my Sailfish device ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
