I have a similar path in a similar state here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/286880416 It's signed with "Danger to life: Path closed due to rockfall and path collapse" and has been for 25 years. I changed it to "abandoned:highway" five years ago, though people are still refining the way geometry from Strava heatmaps 😱! You can see the sign 3m05s into this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpGMgBLZa2s#t=3m05s
Wasn't there a post in the recent past about someone following a path in OSM which didn't technically exist on the ground and getting into trouble? Seems better to *not* have paths which are designated dangerous by the relevant local authority marked on OSM in a way that someone might mistake for a safe route. On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 at 22:47, Andy Townsend <[email protected]> wrote: > (quotes in here are from Chris Smith's 15/11/2025 20:29 talk-gb message) > > First, a couple of disclaimers - I'm a member of OSM's DWG, who handle > disputes like this, and I've dealt with a few of UK access issues in > that capacity before, including some that I have local knowledge of and > some that I don't. I've also been mapping lots of similar areas > _without_ a DWG hat on and in at least one example > (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/678188487 ) I've "managed" a path > from "being a path closed for erosion control" to "not being a path at > all". I'm also somewhat familiar with the area around Thorpe Cloud. > > Here's a map of the area that might be helpful (disclaimer, the map is > mine): > https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#16/53.0555/-1.7761/H/P/N > > The thick green lines are from Richard's "rights of way" tiles and show > where the public footpaths are _supposed_ to be. The red dotted lines > are OSM's public footpaths, grey dotted lines are other paths that > aren't public footpaths, and the purple splodges are for NT's "Walk > Round Thorpe Cloud" https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19283684 , > added by https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NTTrailsMEE . > > As an aside, at a presentation at SOTMEU a couple of days ago the NT's > GIS Data Officer gave a presentation ("Equal Access at the National > Trust" - alas that does not seem to be deep linkable yet at > https://2025.stateofthemap.eu/#schedule ) where she explained that they > were adding these sorts of paths across the country. > > The final relevant bit of info about Thorpe Cloud is that it's CRoW Act > access land > > https://naturalengland-defra.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/Defra::crow-act-2000-access-layer/explore?location=53.059510%2C-1.776814%2C15.38 > . For background, see > > https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-access-land-management-rights-and-responsibilities > - broadly speaking for those unaware it's "right to roam with caveats", > and in addition, just because the whole area is "foot=yes" (in OSM > terms) doesn't mean that it's criss-crossed with actual paths. > > Chris said: > > > Eventually we came to one that was not marked like that and used it > to go to the summit. The going was quite difficult - steep and slippery > rock and the path not always clear. The result was that we accidentally > came back down by path slightly further around the hill. When I got home > and looked at the area on OSM I was surprised to find that the path we > used to go up was the only one shown. > > Based on that description and after looking at the underlying OSM data I > suspect that this is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1087364182 . > That was set to "highway=no" a couple of years ago, and also "foot=no". > Personally I'd have gone for a lifecycle tag "disused:highway" rather > than "highway=no", and strictly speaking "foot=no" is wrong because it's > CRoW Act land, but I can absolutely understand why the NT person who > made that change (a different one to the one that you mentioned) did > so. If you look at the history of > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/47072604/history you can see that OSM > thought the whole area was a work in progress 5 years ago, and "Signs > erected both ends saying path closed because of erosion and risk of > rockfall" 4 years ago. > > Looking back in time with overpass, https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2fzq , I > can't see anything large that was in OSM that has been deleted, so I > presume that way that is now > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1087364182 is "your path". > > To answer the subject directly: > > > Do we map what exists or what the landowner wants to exist? > > We map what exists, but have to consider "whether it is in any sense a > path". Here signs were put up to say that a path was closed both to > prevent erosion and to prevent someone getting killed by a rockfall. > Based on that, I'd suggest that "disused:highway=footway" would make > sense. A pedant could state that it should still have a "foot=yes" tag > because it's still all CRoW Act land, but I can't get too excited about > that. > > A similar one in the Lake District was > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1086252957/history (multiple usernames > in there belong to one person who was referred to the DWG; the tidying > was done by people like gurglypipe , Cebderby and I > (SomeoneElse_Revert). That one also is set to foot=no which > _technically_ isn't correct but again I'm really not fussed about. > > Going back to my recollection of Thorpe Cloud - I seem to remember that > one access (I'm guessing the north) was dodgy much more than 5 years > ago, but that it had been OK to go right across much longer ago - early > 90s or so. > > Best Regards, > > Andy > > PS: One thing that I think also has to be said is that sometimes > "alleged path closures" _aren't_ legitimate. For example, since the > introduction of "universal access" in Scotland a couple of decades ago, > there have been more than a few examples of private landowners trying to > close paths, including "for safety". One NT user got a bit carried away > in England deleting paths that they did not think should be public, and > there I tried to "fix forward" their changes to something that matched > (a) reality and (b) what they were trying to achieve. That was on > behalf of the DWG, and was very much an exception to other edits. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
