Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 13:18 Dave F via Talk-GB, wrote: FYI Wiltshire Council's Rights of Way Explorer is not the 'definitive map'. > It usually a misnomer. Paths are described with words in a definitive > statement. Their map is a representation of that data. Many authorities add > a caveat

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 3:04 PM Simon Still wrote: > > I’d actually say *more* of an issue with OSM is paths that are marked that > ARE NOT a legal right of way. Around Peaslake in the Surrey Hills there > are various ‘mountain bike trails’ shown on OSM that are not rights of way > and which the

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field **Do tag for the USER**

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 03:47:08PM +, David Woolley wrote: > On 08/12/2020 15:11, nathan case wrote: > > I am interested as a path I recently mapped is a PROW but is very dangerous > > to cross. It is now marked as disused:highway=path with > > access=discourged;designated but it is stilla

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

route that people actually use! Nick From: nathan case Sent: 08 December 2020 15:11 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field That's a fair viewpoint and I'm open to changing my method. But what would you suggest

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

2020 3:47 PM To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field On 08/12/2020 15:11, nathan case wrote: > I am interested as a path I recently mapped is a PROW but is very > dangerous to cross. It is now marked as disused:highway=path with > access=di

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On 08/12/2020 15:11, nathan case wrote: I am interested as a path I recently mapped is a PROW but is very dangerous to cross. It is now marked as disused:highway=path with access=discourged;designated but it is stilla PROW (byway open to all traffic in this

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

but it is stilla PROW (byway open to all traffic in this case): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93427676 -Original Message- From: Dave F via Talk-GB Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 2:10 PM To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field On 08/12/2020

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

> On 8 Dec 2020, at 14:20, SK53 > wrote: > Personally I do not generally map PRoWs which have no on-the-ground traces > (particularly after my experience > > in Carmathenshire in

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 13:18, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: > > https://snipboard.io/scrm5R.jpg > > There you go, free of any supposed copyright infringement. Not quite. Before we're able to use any third-party data in OSM, we need to verify that it is available under a suitable licence. So you would

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

That's very interesting Jerry, thanks. I thought the byway's reference was a bit odd actually as in it's the same as the byway that it intersects. In my experience, usually the paths I've looked at are a single line ie. a single beginning and end so maybe it has been "tacked on" to an existing

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

Yes, these are not infrequent. We may have discussed some specific examples before, but one which comes to mind is one crossing the River Derwent at Duffield. This is marked on the definitive map and the name of a track "Save

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On 08/12/2020 12:36, nathan case wrote: but instead setting as disused:highway. This is what I tend to do when the PROW route is clearly inaccessible from aerial imagery (e.g. due to new buildings, or rivers). IMO, this is bad mapping. Just because one person concludes it isn't used by

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On 08/12/2020 12:42, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote: Ah sorry, I shall remove it then Robert. I have drawn it freehand based on what I'd seen on their site as a right of way. Presumably then, if there's no established path, I can never add it to OSM because the definitive map is my only source for

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 12:37, Dave F wrote: > On 08/12/2020 12:08, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:39, Mark Lee via Talk-GB > > wrote: > >> Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway > >> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

Thanks. I'll go back and have a closer look. It was part of a long ride so I didn't do much checking at the time. Mark On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 12:30 Dave F via Talk-GB, wrote: > > > On 08/12/2020 09:36, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote: > > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway ( > >

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

Ah sorry, I shall remove it then Robert. I have drawn it freehand based on what I'd seen on their site as a right of way. Presumably then, if there's no established path, I can never add it to OSM because the definitive map is my only source for this information. Even if I walk it and use my GPS

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On 08/12/2020 12:08, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:39, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote: Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the Wiltshire Definitive Map. Generally these maps have

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 12:01 PM To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:36:31AM +, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote: > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway ( > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479)

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

I'm with you Phil but the locked gate is on a track parallel (50 yards perhaps) to where the bridleway should be. They're both shown on the definitive map so that's probably a legally blocked access. I would have thought that the farmer would have preferred me using it though than for me to

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On 08/12/2020 09:36, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote: Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to have been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:39, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote: > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway > (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the > Wiltshire Definitive Map. I see that you've put source="Wiltshire Definitive Map" in the tagging. Do you have

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:36:31AM +, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote: > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway ( > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the > WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to have > been in use recently,

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

Firstly, before worrying about mapping is to report the illegal obsruction, i.e. the locked gate to the highway authority so that action can be taken to get the problem resolved. In my experience they like a photo of the problem. Phil (trigpoint) On Tuesday, 8 December 2020, Mark Lee via

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no physical evidence You walk along them. There is then physical evidence, and you can map it. I've done that a lot. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

Should be recorded as per the definitive map - lots like that across welsh hilltops etc. I’ve used a gps to follow them in the fog before > On 8 Dec 2020, at 09:36, Mark Lee via Talk-GB > wrote: > > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway >

[Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to have been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I can't see it in any of the