>>... until the landowner (possibly illegally) digs up the path and it
is then gone from the ground with only an immaterial "right" remaining.
Then the path ought to be removed from OSM because we map what is there
on the ground.
**You'd remove a path across a field which used to be visible due to
worn grass if it were ploughed??
>>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.
** To think we should map based on illegal activity is really beyond
comprehension.
By your logic if a marker post gets removed, as they often do, you would
remove the whole path. #Ridiculous.
There are hundreds of miles of PROWs which aren't signposted, yet remain
in OSM
>>If someone illegally tears down a building, we'll still remove it
from OSM - anything else would be "poor mapping".
** But the path would be still *legally* valid & walkable.
>>That is correct, but we do not map legal standing, we map whether
there's a path there or not.
** Yes, we do.
The only way to tag prow_refs is to consult legal Definitive Map
documentation.
There are plenty of adjective tags to describe a feature's accessibility.
>>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.
** No exception. "Verification" often come from documented facts. It's
run of the mill for OSM. There are contributors in the UK currently
adding residential postcode data from documentation as that info isn't
on their front gate. There are a few who maintain retail chains from
databases as that info isn't signed above the door.
DaveF.
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
