<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000099">
Ian<br>
<br>
I am on board with the concept and the need to sort out our tagging.<br>
<br>
However, your category (1) - the OS version - has nothing official
about it. The OS themselves include a disclaimer on all of their maps
so far as the line of rights of way are concerned. The ONLY official
line is the one shown on the (original) definitive map as modified from
time to time by the Highway Authority (or as described in the
Definitive Statement which takes precedence where this differs from the
Definitive Map). Anything else has no legal standing - whether the OS
map or a copy of the one-and-only definitive map (held by the Highway
Authority and available for public inspection). Worse still, the "OS
version" is the one version that still might be subject to copyright
restrictions - although there is clearly an ongoing debate about the OS
and PRoWs since the 1st April loosening of OS controls.<br>
<br>
I understand and could support your categories (2) and (3).<br>
<br>
I would add a category (4) that is not uncommon - especially in
forested areas, in mountainous areas, on "open access" land etc. - the
line of a path that conforms to the definitive (legal) line (and is
usually also the line shown by the OS) that is physically unwalkable.
There are a good number of examples near me where there is forest
either with open access rights under the CROW Act or simply with
permissive access rights - but the actual legal public rights of way
are unwalkable (or virtually so) through dense undergrowth etc. It is
not much of a practical issue as there are many alternative routes
available in these forests - but how should we at OSM be mapping
something like this. I have walked (or, rather, bushwhacked with
considerable effort) my way through a number of them with GPS in hand -
but am a bit reluctant to OSM-map them as paths - at least without some
qualification to indicate that they are, for all practical purposes,
unwalkable.<br>
<br>
Personally, I would never argue with a farmer (or any landowner) based
on OSM or even OS (far too many OS mapping errors - e.g. one of the
most common is the path being shown on the side of a hedge line -
perhaps on the wrong farmer's land - simply because of imperfect
registration of the relevant GIS layers; and a normal hand-held GPS
isn't going to be accurate enough either to determine reliably between
two sides of a hedge or fence). I would always check the definitive map
first (unless I had already done so in advance) - but having done that
then I would feel able to defend the legal line and discuss solutions
to anomalies.<br>
<br>
So far as my own tagging on OSM is concerned, I always try to indicate
(a) the source - usually 'GPS survey' - for the indicated line, (b) the
physical nature of the way as observed in the field, (c) the legal
status - if I know it - using the 'designation' tag with values of
'public_footpath', 'public_bridleway', 'restricted_byway' or 'BOAT' (as
an abbreviation for 'byway open to all traffic' - a misleading term as
these are usually NOR open to ALL traffic - the law is complex). Where
I am aware of a discrepancy with the OS-mapped line I will add a note
to the effect that the OS mapping is wrong (giving the relevant date of
the OS mapping of I can). Where I am aware of a discrepancy between the
path on the ground and the definitive (legal) I also add a note to that
effect. I support the idea of finding and agreeing a tagging practice
that deals in some better way with the information that at present I
simply include in 'note='.<br>
<br>
Mike<br>
<br>
On 19:59, Ian Spencer wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:%3C4BEBDFB4.8050905@gmail.com%3E" type="cite">I
think it would be useful to have a think about how we might tag
validated definitive ways in addition to the public footpath
recognising that there are potentially 3 different versions of a path:
<br>
<br>
1) The official published rights of way - say from OS.
<br>
2) OSM interpretation of rights of way (sourced from a combination of
survey, reinterpretation of LA data and OS data) which could differ.
(The difference between (1) & (2) is the to-do list with the LA
effectively)
<br>
3) The walkable paths which are considered by the public to be the way,
even if they are not the formal definition.
<br>
<br>
While I wouldn't argue with a farmer based on OSM, if we knew what the
derivation was, and the status of any diversions, then at least you can
stride across that newly planted crop with a bit more confidence. I
don't think the current tagging regime exactly covers the above - and I
doubt there is great confidence in the legal validity of of a footpath
tagged in OSM as a Public Footpath.
<br>
<br>
It seems to be that there should be a definitive-way tag with status of
yes, disputed, (and implicitly, no) and another of
definitive-way-source as you cannot establish a definitive way by GPS,
even though you can for the de facto line of the path (being able to
see the difference could be useful).
<br>
<br>
Ian
<br>
<br>
<br>
Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote on 13/05/2010 10:51:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Mike,
<br>
<br>
A very comprehensive reply, thanks for that. It would be worth having
what
<br>
you have written on a relevant wiki page as its probably the best
write-up
<br>
of the arrangements as we know them.
<br>
<br>
Cheers
<br>
<br>
Andy
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">-----Original Message-----
<br>
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:talk-gb-bounces@openstreetmap.org">talk-gb-bounces@openstreetmap.org</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:talk-gb">mailto:talk-gb</a>-
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bounces@openstreetmap.org">bounces@openstreetmap.org</a>] On Behalf Of Mike Harris
<br>
Sent: 13 May 2010 9:06 AM
<br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org">talk-gb@openstreetmap.org</a>
<br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19
<br>
<br>
Hi
<br>
<br>
My understanding of PRoW law is that:
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<b><i>Mike Harris</i></b></div>
</body>
</html>