Good points there - that description is pretty useless without a map to
go with it.
Previously, I would have argued that in some cases the fact there was a
right of way was important. It's common to see a PRoW on a map that
follows a perfectly straight line across moorland. There's no path there
at all, but nonetheless you have the legal right to follow that route
and many people would have done so (no matter how deep in mud they ended
up). Since the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, there's much more
freedom for people to go where they please, so it's less of an issue
where the legal rights are.
That brings me to another point though. Natural England, Scottish
National Heritage and the Countryside Council for Wales will also be
covered by the PSMA from April. Would it be worth asking for any of
their datasets to be considered for exemption? It includes country
parks, the national trails, CRoW Act designations, national parks,
AONBs, SSSIs etc. Full list is available at
http://www.gis.naturalengland.org.uk/pubs/gis/gis_register.asp.
Regards,
Luke
On 24/03/2011 15:50, James Davis wrote:
On 24 Mar 2011, at 13:56, Luke Smith wrote:
As I understand it, there is both a written record of where the rights of way
go and the definitive map is in addition, with the written record taking
precedence?
My experience is that it probably depends, and that the statement and map are
very closely interwoven. My local definitive statement contains descriptions
like:
Public Footpath 001/023 - Follows the track to Orwell Farm from the A123 until
top of hill, then south west to Bridleway 002/054.
So it's usually a good enough description to know what right of way 001/023
refers to, but it's too approximate to draw out tracks in OSM. It's probably
accurate enough for you to identify an existing track in JOSM (that follows the
path as it exists on the ground) but it's not enough to determine that the
track in JOSM is accurate and even if the track in JOSM is an accurate
representation of the path on the ground, it's not enough to tell you that the
path on the ground still strictly follows the right of way (the right of way IS
what's indicated on the map, even if the path on the ground wanders and weaves).
Anyhow, now I wander onto something else that I've been thinking about.
Hope that helps. I've discussed this issue with my local council and although
they appear in principle to be amenable to allowing us to use the definitive
statement in OSM, but neither of us are really sure what it'd be useful for :)
Question. Is OSM as a project really that interested in mapping the legal route
of the right of way, or are we more interested in the utility of knowing that a
track on the ground is considered to follow a right of way and that you can
ride your horse/cart/motorbike/bicycle down there without being hassled?
James
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
