The main aim, though, of this project is to investigate, using the historical maps, historical rights of way for the point of view of gathering evidence to re-open them before 2026.
A possible side-effect of this is to locate new paths to map for OSM. Such paths would not, of course, be tagged with a designation (unless they are legally re-opened) but if there is evidence of use, they could certainly be added as a highway=footway at the very least. Nick ________________________________ From: David Woolley <[email protected]> Sent: 01 October 2019 13:56 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Resurrecting the 'find the missing paths for 2026' project On 30/09/2019 18:25, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > I made a start on this about a year ago, here's a quck mock-up showing > council data in colours and OSM paths shown in white as a 'tippex' > effect. This allows the identification of historical 'F.P' footpaths on > the historical maps which do not correspond either to current council > RoWs or current OSM paths, and thus would be candidates for > investigation to see if the path is in a usable state or there is > evidence of use. Such paths are not going to have finger boards with "public footpath" on them. In other threads, I sense quite a strong lobby for only mapping rights of way that are so marked on the ground and ignoring any designation that only appears in a map. As such, you will end up with at best a permissive status recorded on OSM. Even that is actually likely to be subjective. _______________________________________________ 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
