<div dir="ltr">Andy raised several good points regarding tagging and references but not sure I would agree about ignoring paths if not existing on the ground. Officially if a path exists on the Definitive map then you have the right to walk it, this is the information I was given by the PRoW team when I became a volunteer ranger years ago in County Durham. As part of that I adopted several paths I agreed to walk and report any problems. <div>
<br></div><div>Dudley is correct regarding a deadline, a few months ago I wrote a post regarding some local footpaths and this mentions the deadline: <a href="http://stevenhorner.com/blog/2012/06/06/kittys-wood-public-rights-of-way/" target="_blank">http://stevenhorner.com/blog/2012/06/06/kittys-wood-public-rights-of-way/</a></div>
<div>I have seen lots of paths that are PRoW that have been blocked off and/or diverted usually without notifying the local Council. You can report these and I would encourage everyone to do this or you will lose them.</div>
<div><br></div><div style>Andy: I can see in the link you mentioned where the track isn't marked on the ground, it is marked on OS Maps, not the one around the edge. From looking at both Bing & Google satellites it does look like a fainter track does exist at the location and the more obvious one skirts the edge. A more interesting example of the differences between on the ground and recorded PRoW exists here (just NE of your link): <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.91864&lon=-0.77876&zoom=17&layers=M" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.91864&lon=-0.77876&zoom=17&layers=M</a><br>
</div>
<div>The actual recorded PRoW (byway) as shown by OS cuts the corner slightly, but is shown as not being visible on the ground (the PRoW Byway route is not recoreded on OSM). The green lines on Explorer maps only show that a PRoW exists, it is only visible on the ground if it has black dashed lines under it.</div>
<div><br></div><div>To my mind it would be good if somehow via tags OSM could do something similar.</div><div>designation: public_footpath is only used if it's a PRoW, if it's not tagged as such then it's not an official PRoW. That is how I understood it to be used. The surface tag possibly shows if it exists on the ground but not very reliably because you may tag as grass but is it visible.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div style>Steven</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Steven Horner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steven@stevenhorner.com" target="_blank">steven@stevenhorner.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hello,<div><br></div><div>I have been adding to OSM for about 18 months but more active in recent weeks. I have requested the PRoW from Durham County Council, they currently have not released their data but do have it electronically, just not publicly available to download yet. Their response was more postive than I expected they were looking into it already and were hoping to have a more official response before Xmas (haven't yet).</div>
<div><br></div><div>I have added several footpaths locally but I am often left wondering how to tag these or how to break them into sections. I have followed the guidelines at <a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines</a> but should I tag the footpath with the local authority reference which would aid logging the path to the Council if problems like <a href="http://www.free-map.org.uk/hampshire/" target="_blank">FixMyPaths</a>, if so how?</div>
<div><br></div><div>The other question is do I add the footpath exactly as the Council & Ordnance Survey have recorded it or amend it, if I know it is incorrect on the ground. Currently I have added it as per my own GPX tracks and local knowledge which is more accurate, but officially the PRoW isn't recorded as I have added it to OSM. Do I continue as I have, add both tagged differently or some other way?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Finally should I split the path I have added if it is recorded as two separate paths on the definitive maps. I'm sure this must of been discussed somewhere before and I have missed it?</div><div>
<br></div><div><u>PRoW from OS:</u></div><div>I read Bill Chadwick's mention of hopefully one day the OS would release national paths as Open Data. I don't think that will happen soon, as part of the OS Insight program they were recently testing a new product that included all footpaths in vector format. This will be a commercial product, so unlikely they will be releasing it as Open Data themselves.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div>Steven</div><div><div><br></div>-- <br><img src="http://www.stevenhorner.com/images/swww.png"> <a href="http://www.stevenhorner.com" target="_blank">www.stevenhorner.com </a><div>
<img src="http://www.stevenhorner.com/images/stwitter.png"> <a href="http://twitter.com/stevenhorner" target="_blank">@stevenhorner</a><div><br></div></div>
</div></font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><img src="http://www.stevenhorner.com/images/swww.png"> <a href="http://www.stevenhorner.com" target="_blank">www.stevenhorner.com </a><div><img src="http://www.stevenhorner.com/images/stwitter.png"> <a href="http://twitter.com/stevenhorner" target="_blank">@stevenhorner</a><div>
<img src="http://www.stevenhorner.com/images/sphone.png"> 0191 645 2265 </div><div><img src="http://www.stevenhorner.com/images/sskype.png"> <a>stevenhorner</a></div></div>
</div>