<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 24/03/2011 15:42, Peter Miller wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTint39BJTdv81uNG1Y7qidDm2Rhqftd7=kGkQeQK@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
You make a good point. As far as I am aware the OS now allow
derived works for things drawn on their maps which weren't on
the base map. In the case of rights of way some of them are of
course are on the background OS layer which is a limitation
(see example definite map - link below). As such I don't think
we can use the geometry even if we wanted to.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://rushmerecommon.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/img_1074.jpg">http://rushmerecommon.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/img_1074.jpg</a><br>
<br>
Also... I am less interested in rights of way than in paths
that can actually be used. There are rights of way around here
that are under water now that the rivers have widened. There
are other excellent paths that are not rights of way.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I think this is an important aspect of OSM, and the use of the
designation tag takes us in this direction. There are huge numbers
of well-used paths on the fringes of urban areas where public usage
is more customary than official. Also in many upland areas there are
paths which have never been marked on OS maps, and with access land
now in place, are never likely to be so marked. The ability to
locate these paths in mist or other bad weather can be a significant
aid to safely walking in the hills.<br>
<br>
The usefulness of the definitive statement seems to vary from
council to council. Statements in Nottingham tend to be very
detailed containing 10 figure grid references of start and end
points, widths, compass directions, distances and names of roads. On
the other hand Windsor and Maidenhead seems to consist of just links
to the <a href="http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/prow_maps.htm">Definitive
Map</a>.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTint39BJTdv81uNG1Y7qidDm2Rhqftd7=kGkQeQK@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<br>
Here is a nice example of an impossibly right of way where you
would need waders and a canoe to follow the path!<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=640205&Y=256605&A=Y&Z=120">http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=640205&Y=256605&A=Y&Z=120</a><br>
<br>
The thing that I believe we can lift from the definitive maps
with confidence is fact that it is a 'right of way' and the
right of way code. That was not in the OS base map.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
To change subject, <a href="http://osm.org/go/0EYGcVU1-">this
location</a> represents some of the hazards of current tagging of
tidal waterways with riverbank (recently discussed elsewhere). I've
had to get my feet wet at high tide even on the path on the S side
of the Alde estuary from Snape heading for Iken around Iken Cliff.
Improving tagging for this sort of thing ultimately relates to
achieving decent mapping of practicability of paths.<br>
<br>
There also exist PRoW where you can be actively discouraged from
walking: for instance the <a
href="http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=52.51674306015763%7E0.2686755359173221&lvl=15&dir=0&sty=s&eo=0&where1=Welney%2C%20Norfolk&q=welney&FORM=LMLTCC">bridleway
N</a> from Wash Road on the left bank embankment of the New
Bedford River at Welney. This overlooks the WWT reserve and people
silouhetted on the skyline can cause considerable disturbance to the
wildfowl. As a very naive birdwatcher I didn't know this, until I
got a flea in my ear from a warden driving a tractor (which does not
spook the birds). <br>
<br>
Jerry<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>