On 16/12/2025 21:12, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
>>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.
I think it's worth bearing in mind here that the vast majority of public
rights of way in England and Wales can be accurately and usefully mapped
based on a combination of on the ground surveys, local knowledge, the
definitive statement, aerial imagery and signposts/waymarks. There will
be occasions where these don't quite match up and it's a judgment call
as to which to prefer when adding the route to OSM. But that's not
normally a major problem.
The real issues occur where you have a path which exists in a legal
sense, and possibly even on the ground, up to a point, but is
nonetheless clearly impassable. Examples include where a landowner has
deliberately (and illegally) blocked a path, or natural blockages such
as a landslip.
How you map those will depend very much on local circumstances. A very
good example of a natural blockage is the footpath which runs along the
east side of the River Dove at Dovedale. The last time I visited there
(earlier this year), that path was effectively impassable just south of
the stepping stones, because a combination of landslip and scour have
effectively placed the route in the river. You could walk it if you
don't mind getting your feet wet, or if you're willing to scramble along
the edge, or - very carefully - pick a route across the stones which
protrude above the surface of the water. But for the average
recreational walker, it's impassable. It is, though, still a public
right of way, and appears as such in Derbyshire's definite map and
statements.
How would we map that? Well, I think the best option is the one which
has been done, which is to map the path but tag it in a way which makes
it clear that it's difficult to walk:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1418924497
I'm not certain that ford=stepping_stones is the best tag there (to me,
that implies a deliberately created crossing), but I'm equally unsure of
a better option. But, either way, I think it's right to retain the path
on the map, even though, for most people, it's effectively not a path.
For deliberate, illegal blockages, I think it's more straightforward.
Retain the path as it was before it was illegally blocked, with maybe an
additional tag to indicate the addition of a blockage (such as a fence
or wall) at the appropriate point. But illegal blockages are typically
temporary. They either get unblocked when the local authority takes
enforcement action against the landowner, or the path is removed or
diverted when the landowner successfully applies to have it closed. In
the latter case, the new path can then replace the old one in the data.
But there's no need to delete a path just because it's currently
temporarily blocked.
Mark
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
