Nick Whitelegg wrote: > Hello Godfrey, > > Sorry I should have made another point: > > "If it's a path which you know is a right of way via an Ordnance Survey > map, but cannot verify that on the ground, again you must use > foot=permissive even if that's not true. This is because you can't verify > the right of way status from a non copyright source." > > To even tag such a path as foot=permissive you need some sort of evidence > that it's being used by walkers (e.g. seeing other walkers on the path, > "Keep to path" signs, local custom e.g. all paths in the New Forest have > permissive public access). If you see a path where the *only* evidence > that you can use it is an OS map, then you probably can't even use > foot=permissive. In such cases you'll just have to tag as highway=path as > the only thing you can verify from a non copyright source is the physical > nature of the way. Perhaps foot=unknown or access=unknown too, or > note=Might be private. > > Nick >
Thanks for your replies Nick. I must agree with you that it is pointless tracing in footpaths from NPE data. Over 50 years, footpaths have been closed, diverted, amalgamated etc and new ones established in line with the changing features of the countryside. Because of the poor upkeep of footpaths in many parts of the country, it's often impossible to tell which side of a stream, wood or hedge the path travels. If not completely overgrown, the physical trail is often no more than a rabbit track! Because of the ambiguity, it doesn't seem logical to suggest that seeing other walkers on it means that it's 'permissive'. They could be trespassing too. However, my question was not about where you can see a path but can't tell if it is a legal right of way or not without looking at the OS map. It was about when the physical evidence of the path fizzles out and the only way you know which way to proceed is to look at a copyrighted map. You suggest drawing a straight line between the last known physical evidence point, and the next one. This doesn't seem satisfactory to me – that line could cut through crops, private property, industrial plants, protected habitats etc. It isn't reasonable to declare that a particular way exists and put the onus on the landowner to refute it. Assuming we expect the map to be used in practice to navigate, then putting straight paths across countryside without knowing that they exist or have ever existed along that line, is simply inviting people to trespass. I'm coming to the conclusion that OSM will never map GB rural walking routes at a level of accuracy required by a hiker. Even where legal rights of way exist, there will be significant breaks in the route where it is impossible to provide non-copyright verifiable evidence of the PROW. _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
