Hi all, This is my first post to this (or indeed any) mailing list. Apologies if I've made any errors.
I agree with Colin that we should certainly not be assuming permissive status for paths which are not included on the definitive map. The DM is legally definitive in the rights that it shows but it is also explicitly not evidence about the non-existence of other rights. We can't say "the definitive path goes this way, thus the path going the other way must be permissive". In order to tag a way as permissive we ought to have some verifiable evidence that public use is by permission. As Andy and Colin say, some common sense needs to be applied before adding information from the DM/DS into OSM. Until we come up with a tagging system to say "this map feature exists legally but not on the ground", adding obvious errors, paths which have subsequently been built across, or stiles/gates which now exist only on the DS lessens the usability of the map for people actually wanting to use the paths. I'm in Lancashire which hasn't explicitly released the DS/DM information under a suitable license (though it does appear on rowmaps). If I was somewhere which had released this information, it would definitely be useful for checking osm for errors and for adding the definitive line where the current path takes a different course. However, I'd still avoid making small adjustments to ways following actual GPS traces (eg through fields) just to get them to exactly follow the council's shape-files. The scope for error in the several generations of copying (Parish return>Draft Map(s)>Revision(s)>computerisation) and the limitation of the original DM scale means that we are better off with our own measurements of the path. Adam
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
