<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Steven Horner wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALYXVraNU=p+fvzMEZW=JQtg5OXJwx4DLG3v7JCUA0Bo5txOKg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines">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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.free-map.org.uk/hampshire/">FixMyPaths</a>,
if so how?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
First things first, I'd definitely go out and survey them. The OS
hasn't surveyed these paths (if at all) for years, and important
details such as the path surface and which side of a hedge it runs
often aren't recorded. That'll create a series of ways within OSM,
broken up by e.g. surface changes and whenever there's a bridge.
I'd also add "designation=public_footpath", of course.<br>
<br>
Previously I would have taken that designation to mean "Someone has
been there and can verify that there is a public footpath sign",
although if people are going to import footpath information from
councils without survey then perhaps we all ought to be adding
"source:designation" as well?<br>
<br>
Personally I'm not convinced by adding reference numbers that don't
exist on any signs (some, but very few, authorities put them
there). If you can't refer to it anywhere, it's not exactly a
reference number, is it*?<br>
<br>
I notice in taginfo that there are 10 "footpath_ref" and 2
"source:footpath_ref" already. Perhaps something would that would
do? Personnaly, if I was going to add "footpath_ref" I'd definitely
add "source:footpath_ref" to make it clear where it came from.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALYXVraNU=p+fvzMEZW=JQtg5OXJwx4DLG3v7JCUA0Bo5txOKg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'd definitely tag what's on the ground. If there's a path that
people use, add that as highway=footway (or whatever). If there's a
public footpath sign pointing down it, add
"designation=public_footpath".<br>
<br>
If the "public footpath" sign points in a different direction to the
path that everyone uses, I'd tag both. Here's one I found in
Leicestershire:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=52.915121&lon=-0.783637&zoom=18">http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=52.915121&lon=-0.783637&zoom=18</a><br>
<br>
If the local authority or the OS have some path route that isn't
marked on the ground, I personnally probably wouldn't bother adding
it, since it doesn't actually exist.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALYXVraNU=p+fvzMEZW=JQtg5OXJwx4DLG3v7JCUA0Bo5txOKg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="">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>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
If you use something like "footpath_ref" then you'll have to do this,
but of course you'll probably split into much smaller segments
anyway when you take into account surface changes, bridges, etc.<br>
<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Andy<br>
<br>
* I have exactly the same issue with people adding reference numbers
(from who knows where) to C roads. The only effect surely is to
confuse foreign visitors.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>