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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > *To:* Rob <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] > *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 <http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/399058710>based > on the lines between waymarks which does not accord > <http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ne-leics-footpath-mapping_120727#16/52.8132/-0.9196> > 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 > <http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/268238782> 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 > <http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/269819287>). > > 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 > <http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/466045435> permissive and the line > <http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/466045441> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *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-engla >> nd-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 >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> >> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> >> > > > ------------------------------ > [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
