On 15/12/2025 10:27, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 12/15/25 09:45, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
Documents held by the authorities listing the routes is 'ground truth'.
No.
It makes the map shit if you want to follow a path that is on the map
only to find the path dug up and blocked by the land owner. The land
owner may have done something illegal, but a path that is gone is gone.
The wiki semi-disagrees with you:
"Rights of way should be marked even where no visible path can be seen
on the ground (providing that there is some indication, sign post or
other, of there in fact being a right of way). In such cases a surface
tag is highly recommended."
Note that the key thing here, according to the wiki, is not whether
there is a visible path on the ground (which, for a lot of rights of way
in open countryside, there isn't even when it isn't being deliberately
obstructed), but whether the path is waymarked or signposted.
I agree that if the path is invisible, AND there are no signs or
waymarks, then it probably shouldn't be mapped. But the presence of
either of them is sufficient on-the-ground evidence.
Bear in mind here that landowners are only required not to prevent
passage along a right of way. They are not obliged to maintain the right
of way to a particular standard above and beyond simply being passable
on foot (or, if applicable, on horseback). It is perfectly legitimate
for a right of way to exist across an open, grass field or meadow. In
which case, it's quite normal for the path not to be visible on the
ground at all, if there isn't enough usage to create a visible track.
If someone illegally tears down a building, we'll still remove it from
OSM - anything else would be "poor mapping".
A building is a physical thing which either exists or not. But a right
of way is non-physical thing, it exists independently of the physical
nature of the surface. However, the things which indicate a right of way
(signs and waymarks) are visible even if the path isn't.
A lack of physical evidence doesn't negate its legal standing.
That is correct, but we do not map legal standing, we map whether
there's a path there or not.
The path exists whether you can see it or not. Or, the path may be
visible part of the year, depending on weather conditions and usage. But
it doesn't cease to be a path the rest of the year.
Here's a real life example of that, which I'm familiar with as it's
close to where I live:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/82954230
For most of its length, that particular footpath is clearly visible on
the ground, because it's across wild grassland and the path is
deliberately cut and maintained through the vegetation. But there's a
section both north and south of the road bridge where the path is across
maintained grassland used for grazing and hay. Whether it's visible
there depends entirely on the season. In summer, when the grass is dry
and the path is well-used, it becomes visible. In winter, when the grass
is wet and fewer people are walking the route, it ceases to be visible
on the ground. But it's still there.
It's similar for the majority of boundaries. You don't see dashed
yellow lines painted across fields denoting county boundaries.
That is correct. We are making a huge exception for boundaries but that
doesn't mean the principle of on-the-ground verification is dead.
The presence of signs and/or waymarking is on-the-ground evidence of a
public right of way.
Mark
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
