Hi, this is definitely an interesting subject and I have a different scenario to this thread but pertaining to the landowner wanting to class highways differently to the Wiki. I this scenario we have a request from the landowner to change the highway type to Motorway on a section of road on their motor vehicle proving ground. However, this section of road does not align with the Wiki. My thought is that as this is a private facility and not open to the public that this would be ok but I am also interested in your opinions on this scenario. Thanks in advance.
Chris -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 7:00 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Talk-GB Digest, Vol 230, Issue 8 Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Do we map what exists or what the landowner wants to exist? (Chris Hodges) 2. Re: Do we map what exists or what the landowner wants to exist? (SK53) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:54:25 +0000 From: Chris Hodges <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Do we map what exists or what the landowner wants to exist? Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed On 16/11/2025 23:26, Steven Hirschorn wrote: > > 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? I think you might be referring to this case: https://www.thegreatoutdoorsmag.com/news/concerns-raised-over-crowdsourced-maps-used-by-popular-hiking-apps/ in the Lake District? Here's a write-up of the route itself: https://www.lakelandwalkingtales.co.uk/bishop-of-barf/.? That does exist on the ground but you wouldn't want to try and follow it in the dark, or use it as a shortcut descent, which was the problem - apparently the route was tagged with a suitable sac_scale but that's not displayed (clearly) in most renders ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2025 10:38:08 +0000 From: SK53 <[email protected]> To: Chris Hodges <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Do we map what exists or what the landowner wants to exist? Message-ID: <caelijw8yxlh-adfspy-d3-lwntuzmxssab5owaz6tshmvji...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" The Barf route case was discussed extensively at the time. It's one reason why Andy's useful maps has an overlay for such ways, but does not show them automatically. I wrote a couple of diary entries about identifying paths with steep sections: * https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SK53/diary/400702 * https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SK53/diary/400712 There were many interesting posts on Mastodon, especially mastodon.scot, from experienced mountain leaders. Not only about the specific Lakeland cases (not just Barf), but also general observations about OSM tagging and cartography. These were quite difficult to discover at the time because they weren't always replicated to the OSM Mastodon instance. On the original question. Our usual advice to landowners is that paths visible on imagery will be re-added if removed, and that visible notices regarding privacy etc. are more useful where they don't want members of the public such paths. This isn't the case here. The way has been retained, but access tags added, which at least at one time reflected on-the-ground notices. Clearly the National Trust's intent is that the line of this path should disappear as it is allowed to recover. We know that there are other, more problematic, paths on the National Trust's estate. These are mainly public rights of way which are either eroded or pass through delicate ecosystems (rare plants, ground nesting birds etc). AFAIK there is nearly always a nearby alternative path, and often easier to follow. I don't know what their current standard is for tagging such paths. However, they have been engaging with OSM, mainly through OSM-UK, for well over 6 years. They presented their initial plans at SotM-19 in Heidelberg. Roll-out was hampered by Covid-19, which was a shame. John Stanworth and I attended an early event organised by the NT GIS team for NT volunteers and rangers at Clumber Park about 6 years ago. I suspect that there will be scope in the future for active mappers to help rangers and volunteers where there's a lot of NT land local to them. Jerry On Mon, 17 Nov 2025, 09:59 Chris Hodges, <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 16/11/2025 23:26, Steven Hirschorn wrote: > > > > 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? > > > I think you might be referring to this case: > > https://www/. > thegreatoutdoorsmag.com%2Fnews%2Fconcerns-raised-over-crowdsourced-map > s-used-by-popular-hiking-apps%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cchristopher.pankhurst% > 40tomtom.com%7C21768529ae3f4cd8afc508de25d127b2%7C374f80267b544a3ab87d > 328fa26ec10d%7C0%7C0%7C638989777428274419%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJF > bXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbC > IsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KHLBA%2FDMnyigB4lHn05nO7soZ2Raa7 > WRJZpGmTG0upg%3D&reserved=0 in the Lake District? Here's a write-up of > the route itself: > https://www/. > lakelandwalkingtales.co.uk%2Fbishop-of-barf%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cchristop > her.pankhurst%40tomtom.com%7C21768529ae3f4cd8afc508de25d127b2%7C374f80 > 267b544a3ab87d328fa26ec10d%7C0%7C0%7C638989777428285228%7CUnknown%7CTW > FpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIs > IkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fmqdk%2FelNtLBQzuh > G3QZAVHVU2ty%2BoXNbw1Lp23%2Bt18%3D&reserved=0. That does exist on the > ground but you wouldn't want to try and follow it in the dark, or use > it as a shortcut descent, which was the problem - apparently the route > was tagged with a suitable sac_scale but that's not displayed > (clearly) in most renders > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > https://list/ > s.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-gb&data=05%7C02%7Cchristopher.pa > nkhurst%40tomtom.com%7C21768529ae3f4cd8afc508de25d127b2%7C374f80267b54 > 4a3ab87d328fa26ec10d%7C0%7C0%7C638989777428295650%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZs > b3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIj > oiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=M%2FMNxkPZJi%2BqYOPDlc1n > TwuCz0OvUGCtqIAx0VzQL8g%3D&reserved=0 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20251117/fae8829a/attachment-0001.htm> ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ------------------------------ End of Talk-GB Digest, Vol 230, Issue 8 *************************************** This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is proprietary to TomTom and/or its affiliates or otherwise confidential or legally privileged. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply, and delete all copies of this message and any attachments. If you are the intended recipient, you may use the information contained in this message and any files attached to this message only as authorized by TomTom. Any unauthorized use, dissemination, or disclosure of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. The contents of this email are not to be considered binding upon TomTom. _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
