Hi Jerry, The Fire College is a great example and I love the web site name: 'pathetic motorways'. I propose to go ahead and make the edit on the testing ground and monitor it for any changes and see if it sticks.
Cheers Chris -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 1:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Talk-GB Digest, Vol 230, Issue 10 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 (SK53) 2. Re: Do we map what exists or what the landowner wants to exist? (Chris Smith) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 16:39:34 +0000 From: SK53 <[email protected]> To: Chris Pankhurst <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Do we map what exists or what the landowner wants to Message-ID: <caelijw8kqgf_auoqndkc8qrk6hoth56th5xcekjh0umya9a...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" We certainly used to have a "motorway" at a training establishment. IIRC the Fire College at Moreton-un-Marsh. This one I think: https://pathetic.org.uk/secretive/m96/ The problem with tagging such things as motorways is that they will inevitably by 'corrected', although in practice they exist precisely to simulate motorways. Jerry On Mon, 17 Nov 2025, 21:29 Chris Pankhurst via Talk-GB, < [email protected]> wrote: > 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://list/ > s.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-gb&data=05%7C02%7Cchristopher.pa > nkhurst%40tomtom.com%7C92977db56f244183018008de26cf9d15%7C374f80267b54 > 4a3ab87d328fa26ec10d%7C0%7C0%7C638990870337829278%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZs > b3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIj > oiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=csK3FkALteVnDlDmehv85%2F > 8m6km8cANkFFmvlWx3d%2B0%3D&reserved=0 > 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%2Fnews%2Fconcerns-raised-over-crowdsourced-map > s-used-by-popular-hiking-apps%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cchristopher.pankhurst% > 40tomtom.com%7C92977db56f244183018008de26cf9d15%7C374f80267b544a3ab87d > 328fa26ec10d%7C0%7C0%7C638990870337840600%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJF > bXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbC > IsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=467r1dwq3nNXNk%2BpJUXAn35yF4r7iu > jp%2FXykb0n30pE%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%7C92977db56f244183018008de26cf9d15%7C374f80 > 267b544a3ab87d328fa26ec10d%7C0%7C0%7C638990870337852267%7CUnknown%7CTW > FpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIs > IkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CKKKMhqTOw2O9Sz6Lp > SFpERjRUp6d1AdChLMCoEKCW8%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 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > 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%2Fuser%2FSK53%2Fdiary%2F400702&data=05%7C02%7Cchrist > opher.pankhurst%40tomtom.com%7C92977db56f244183018008de26cf9d15%7C374f > 80267b544a3ab87d328fa26ec10d%7C0%7C0%7C638990870337863931%7CUnknown%7C > TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMi > IsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oHmo2E7A8BZh9ySU > aDnSAHcbpCKyWmx4sQU3F9W3Jdc%3D&reserved=0 > * > https://www/. > openstreetmap.org%2Fuser%2FSK53%2Fdiary%2F400712&data=05%7C02%7Cchrist > opher.pankhurst%40tomtom.com%7C92977db56f244183018008de26cf9d15%7C374f > 80267b544a3ab87d328fa26ec10d%7C0%7C0%7C638990870337875456%7CUnknown%7C > TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMi > IsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Bl0jZbAiXB4CVmEo > NnKRx4f2yse7mu1CyAmyXRpoq8U%3D&reserved=0 > > 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-m > > ap > > s-used-by-popular-hiking-apps%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cchristopher.pankhurs > > t% > > 40tomtom.com%7C21768529ae3f4cd8afc508de25d127b2%7C374f80267b544a3ab8 > > 7d > > 328fa26ec10d%7C0%7C0%7C638989777428274419%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey > > JF > > bXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFp > > bC > > IsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KHLBA%2FDMnyigB4lHn05nO7soZ2Ra > > a7 > > 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%7Cchrist > > op > > her.pankhurst%40tomtom.com%7C21768529ae3f4cd8afc508de25d127b2%7C374f > > 80 > > 267b544a3ab87d328fa26ec10d%7C0%7C0%7C638989777428285228%7CUnknown%7C > > TW > > FpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMi > > Is > > IkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fmqdk%2FelNtLBQz > > uh 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%7C374f80267b > > 54 > > 4a3ab87d328fa26ec10d%7C0%7C0%7C638989777428295650%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG > > Zs > > b3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFO > > Ij > > oiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=M%2FMNxkPZJi%2BqYOPDlc > > 1n > > TwuCz0OvUGCtqIAx0VzQL8g%3D&reserved=0 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was > scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists/ > .openstreetmap.org%2Fpipermail%2Ftalk-gb%2Fattachments%2F20251117%2Ffa > e8829a%2Fattachment-0001.htm&data=05%7C02%7Cchristopher.pankhurst%40to > mtom.com%7C92977db56f244183018008de26cf9d15%7C374f80267b544a3ab87d328f > a26ec10d%7C0%7C0%7C638990870337886966%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0 > eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIl > dUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MZnZqYl0X3r9DsYnxMeUmgg1kT2dobXExQq5 > F9hndF8%3D&reserved=0 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > https://list/ > s.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-gb&data=05%7C02%7Cchristopher.pa > nkhurst%40tomtom.com%7C92977db56f244183018008de26cf9d15%7C374f80267b54 > 4a3ab87d328fa26ec10d%7C0%7C0%7C638990870337898586%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZs > b3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIj > oiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3NIdgPer9ztRHjRhJ9Ya44mu > V2u7yjKNRBSXvPiP7gw%3D&reserved=0 > > > ------------------------------ > > 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://list/ > s.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-gb&data=05%7C02%7Cchristopher.pa > nkhurst%40tomtom.com%7C92977db56f244183018008de26cf9d15%7C374f80267b54 > 4a3ab87d328fa26ec10d%7C0%7C0%7C638990870337909829%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZs > b3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIj > oiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aktonV8eShsTGUkyr0mjb%2F > sJQdjLDBlTfW0%2BVsvVN5E%3D&reserved=0 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20251118/95da55fd/attachment-0001.htm> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 18:17:58 +0000 From: Chris Smith <[email protected]> To: Talk Gb <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Do we map what exists or what the landowner wants to exist? Message-ID: <CABTXUuviE-Z=7wmjri3bmszcccf9xlshvcqewbqovopnvzw...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Thanks to all those who commented on my post - much food for thought! I would like to make a few more comments; 1) My post contained an error, when I said that we walked anticlockwise around the hill, I should have said the reverse! We went Clockwise. 2) The path we actually used to go up was this one https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=18/53.055675/-1.773855 3) I was not aware of the document linked by Ed Loach - thanks ED. 4) Thanks to Olivia Ragone for update and action and to Andy Townsend for vast amount of info. 5) Andy mentioned that the paths which NT does not want used should be marked at both ends - so far as I could see they were only marked at the bottom - hence our mistake on our descent 6) The oddest Edit here is that the actual Dovedale Stepping stones are marked as no access to anyone. I know they were closed last year, but appear to have been reopened some time ago and certainly were in use last week when I visited. https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=20/53.0592856/-1.7756672 7) If there has been no large scale tidying up done, then it seems odd that, in such a busy area, no one has added the many unofficial trails, now marked as closed. The NT document is clear that paths added by other users should not be deleted. 8) I have refrained from stepping into the minefield and doing any edits in this area! Thanks again for all comments. Chris 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%2Fway%2F678188487&data=05%7C02%7Cchristopher.pankhu > rst%40tomtom.com%7C92977db56f244183018008de26cf9d15%7C374f80267b544a3ab87d328fa26ec10d%7C0%7C0%7C638990870337957157%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jhejGpC2%2FztvodcXCF6lbMbGn6Ai2%2Fc2NDMFL5payHA%3D&reserved=0 > ) 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%2Fmaps%2Fmap%2Fmap.html%2316%2F53.0555%2F-1.7761%2FH% > 2FP%2FN&data=05%7C02%7Cchristopher.pankhurst%40tomtom.com%7C92977db56f > 244183018008de26cf9d15%7C374f80267b544a3ab87d328fa26ec10d%7C0%7C0%7C63 > 8990870337975018%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiO > iIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C > %7C%7C&sdata=JfEYweVDL4S%2BqQiWVTiv76aw41KfmA59TRziIghuDmI%3D&reserved > =0 > > 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://0.0.7.233/ > .stateofthemap.eu%2F%23schedule&data=05%7C02%7Cchristopher.pankhurst%40tomtom.com%7C92977db56f244183018008de26cf9d15%7C374f80267b544a3ab87d328fa26ec10d%7C0%7C0%7C638990870338010615%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FI257ZSrIfj4dbQ89lPlZPOzXNH2icbCL6Q36kJEBnQ%3D&reserved=0 > ) 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://natu/ > ralengland-defra.opendata.arcgis.com%2Fdatasets%2FDefra%3A%3Acrow-act- > 2000-access-layer%2Fexplore%3Flocation%3D53.059510%252C-1.776814%252C1 > 5.38&data=05%7C02%7Cchristopher.pankhurst%40tomtom.com%7C92977db56f244 > 183018008de26cf9d15%7C374f80267b544a3ab87d328fa26ec10d%7C0%7C0%7C63899 > 0870338021128%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIw > LjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C > %7C&sdata=3qoQmhiemMQTBisHv42V2U1gqoBgjKH7fmGpzTKEAPg%3D&reserved=0 > . For background, see > > https://www/. > gov.uk%2Fguidance%2Fopen-access-land-management-rights-and-responsibil > ities&data=05%7C02%7Cchristopher.pankhurst%40tomtom.com%7C92977db56f24 > 4183018008de26cf9d15%7C374f80267b544a3ab87d328fa26ec10d%7C0%7C0%7C6389 > 90870338031640%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiI > wLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7 > C%7C&sdata=gDf8ovPSb9sTqHsMDeMVIh0p8CqO2PLDsy9JL22kCnw%3D&reserved=0 > - 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%2Fway%2F47072604%2Fhistory&data=05%7C02%7Cchristophe > r.pankhurst%40tomtom.com%7C92977db56f244183018008de26cf9d15%7C374f8026 > 7b544a3ab87d328fa26ec10d%7C0%7C0%7C638990870338054359%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xfI2kFjGzGnDsuo9FzTqpT%2FycuMD%2F5lFttmi%2Bfi4Hp4%3D&reserved=0 > 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://over/ > pass-turbo.eu%2Fs%2F2fzq&data=05%7C02%7Cchristopher.pankhurst%40tomtom > .com%7C92977db56f244183018008de26cf9d15%7C374f80267b544a3ab87d328fa26e > c10d%7C0%7C0%7C638990870338065977%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1h > cGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIj > oyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lEPt7ieTRuzq4hLdJeBfBLCxQHVV9fhbbXlHETEy > LGY%3D&reserved=0 , 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%2Fway%2F1086252957%2Fhistory&data=05%7C02%7Cchristop > her.pankhurst%40tomtom.com%7C92977db56f244183018008de26cf9d15%7C374f80 > 267b544a3ab87d328fa26ec10d%7C0%7C0%7C638990870338087639%7CUnknown%7CTW > FpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8o6s6R7ItyYZc4yYSfHi7GXmcHPA8IFAzX2vhGTLMxU%3D&reserved=0 > (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://list/ > s.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-gb&data=05%7C02%7Cchristopher.pa > nkhurst%40tomtom.com%7C92977db56f244183018008de26cf9d15%7C374f80267b54 > 4a3ab87d328fa26ec10d%7C0%7C0%7C638990870338098604%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZs > b3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIj > oiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FbZWiXja7b9UJiGs%2FAGSiG > Urd74V5VR7c8HBO4jD%2B%2FA%3D&reserved=0 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20251118/3e840ba8/attachment.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 10 **************************************** 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
