<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Thanks to Colin and Jerry for your
responses.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Although I understand and agree with what you're
saying Colin, I probably didn't make it clear enough in my attempt to be concise
that it's the representation on OSM that I've got queries about as I'm fairly au
fait with the law on this. I'll refrain from tagging any sections of
a path as a PROW even if it's only a little bit out.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Thanks for the link to the government guide, which
I wasn't aware of. The Ramblers Association/Open Spaces
Society's so-called Blue Book <A
href="http://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/rights-of-way-law-in-england-and-wales/the-blue-book.aspx">http://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/rights-of-way-law-in-england-and-wales/the-blue-book.aspx</A></FONT><FONT
size=2 face=Arial> is also worth knowing about.</FONT></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I think what I'll do is show the routes that are
actually used, and where they deviate from the definitive route I'll tag them as
permissive. However, even that isn't straightforward as any routes marked
out by the farmer (as with a cereal crop) can vary from year to year, or not be
marked at all. When not marked an arbitrary route can often be
seen or walkers might (as an example you gave, Jerry) use the field edge to
reduce damage to crops. T<FONT size=2 face=Arial>he definitive route
may be the only constant in such cases (except if legally changed).</FONT>
I had it in mind that in some cases it could be appropriate to show both the
PROW and the route that's normally used, so it's encouraging to see that you've
done this. I won't always apply this principle, though, as I don't
think it's right somehow to show a PROW going through a house even when it
does!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Similarly, I'll have to think about whether to show
a PROW going through an impenetrable hedge when there's an alternative route
nearby. If I do, I'll tag the appropriate node as a barrier with
a suitable value.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>An associated issue is where a path is frequently
obstructed or made difficult to walk by undergrowth and there's no alternative
route due to barbed wire for example. I guess one solution may be to show
it but add the tag 'barrier:obstruction' in conjunction with a 'note'
tag. (Thoughts?)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I think I'll take each case on its merits as at the
moment I can't see a 'rule' that will be sensible for
everything.</FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Cheers,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Rob</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=sk53.osm@gmail.com href="mailto:sk53.osm@gmail.com">SK53</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=ra@care4free.net
href="mailto:ra@care4free.net">Rob</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, February 05, 2017 3:26
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data
is not always accurate.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>Hi Rob,<BR><BR></DIV>Generally the ideal is a path followed & mapped
as it appears on the ground, with the status (designation) of the path based
on waymarkers and fingerposts. This will inevitably mean that in places the
mapped path does not follow the line shown on the definitive map: most usually
because following the correct line over a field is not easy. (I've relatively
recently mapped a <A href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/399058710"
target=_blank>bridleway </A>based on the lines between waymarks which <A
href="http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ne-leics-footpath-mapping_120727#16/52.8132/-0.9196"
target=_blank>does not accord</A> with the line provided by Leicestershire
CC). <BR><BR>Frequently, the actual formal line of a PRoW may divert from the
natural line on the ground and this will only be apparent by close comparison
with the definitive map data. A <A
href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/268238782">good example</A> is a path
which follows a track to a sail-less windmill just S of Ockley in Surrey, the
definitive line actually follows the hedgerow. This was completely non-obvious
on the ground: no waymarks etc. It is likely that anyone following the path on
the ground would make the same assumption that we did, that the path follows
the track and then leads down directly to the hedge to the E. In this case the
diversion is minor, non-obvious (and if it's been followed without let or
hindrance for 20 years is a de facto PRoW anyway). So for reasons of
practicality it still makes sense to map it with the designation. Of course if
also makes sense to re-survey and double check for waymarks etc. on the line
from Surrey CC. (I've actually done this closer to Capel station & failed
to find suitable waymarks on a second survey for <A
href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/269819287">this
path</A>).<BR><BR></DIV>In other cases it's much clearer. Around Scalford at
our meeting 3 weeks ago I came across several paths where the waymarks
strongly suggested the PRoW directly crossed the field, but there were no
signs on the ground. In general paths followed the headland round the field.
In these cases I've marked the actual <A
href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/466045435">visible paths</A> permissive
and <A href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/466045441">the line</A> of the
PRoW just with the designation tags. <BR><BR></DIV>If mapping directly from
OGL PRoW data the latter is actually all that one can infer. Assuming that a
path or track exists because there is PRoW is an error: other evidence is
needed. I'm aware of several short footpaths in Nottinghamshire which aren't
signed by the County Council because they dont lead anywhere (e.g., one in
Hicking and one off Nottingham Road, Trowell).<BR><BR></DIV>Note also that the
GIS data provided is always clearly stated NOT to be definitive. Only
consultation with the description and the original definition map can be
relied upon.<BR><BR></DIV>Regards,<BR><BR></DIV>Jerry<BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On 5 February 2017 at 13:03, Rob <SPAN dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:ra@care4free.net" target=_blank>ra@care4free.net</A>></SPAN>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote><U></U>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
bgcolor="#ffffff">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Hi,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I'm a relative newcomer to contributing to OSM but
trying to get to grips as quickly as possible with the
consensus on various topics, one of which is PROWs. The emails
below raise questions I've had for a while.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I'm hoping for guidance as p</FONT><FONT
face=Arial>aths can include these two types:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>1. Definitive PROWs (but subject
to subsequent Orders - whether deviations or
extinguishments)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>2. De facto paths generally thought to be
PROWs.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Most of the time the two are coincident.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Where they're not coincident, is it the case
</FONT><FONT face=Arial>that we should map the de facto paths?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>In such a situation should the de facto paths be
tagged as PROWs and/or given the highway authority's reference?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Where there's a difference should we also map the
definitive PROWs in some way (even if they go through a private house - I'm
not making that up)?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I realise there's an important but separate issue of
copyright if the route can be determined only from the definitive map (based
on the OS map).</FONT><FONT face=Arial></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Rob</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4"><B>From:</B> <A
title=colin.smale@xs4all.nl href="mailto:colin.smale@xs4all.nl"
target=_blank>Colin Smale</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=talk-gb@openstreetmap.org href="mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org"
target=_blank>talk-gb@openstreetmap.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, February 05, 2017 11:33
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath Open
Data is not always accurate.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<P>My understanding is that the definitive data held by the appropriate
local authority is exactly that, definitive. There may be legitimate
errors in there of course, but where a path has been willfully and legally
rerouted, that is a different type of error - lack of currency, i.e. an
order has been made to reroute the path but they haven't yet got round to
updating the Definitive Map and the Definitive Statement.</P>
<P>Any paths that no longer follow the official route (as per the DM/DS)
should not be tagged as PROW and probably as access=permissive unless they
go across otherwise public land. The official route is still a public
right of way, it's just no longer usable as such.</P>
<P>Do you have a way of feeding these discrepancies back to Somerset CC,
to establish whether they are true errors, lack of currency or illegal
reroutings?</P>
<P><A
href="http://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/rights-of-way-law-in-england-and-wales/definitive-maps-explained.aspx"
target=_blank>http://www.ramblers.org.uk/<WBR>advice/rights-of-way-law-in-<WBR>england-and-wales/definitive-<WBR>maps-explained.aspx</A></P>
<P>--colin</P>
<DIV> </DIV>
<P><BR></P>
<P>On 2017-02-05 11:19, Dave F wrote:</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0.4em; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.4em; PADDING-TOP: 0px"
type="cite">
<DIV
style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: monospace; PADDING-TOP: 0px"
class=m_-7768828290433181740pre>Hi<BR><BR>If you're using local
authority data/os open data to map paths, as a contributor current is in
Somerset, please don't assume their layout corresponds with what's on
the ground or is more accurate than what's mapped in OSM. These official
ways are often outdated, being based on redundant features such as
grubbed up fences & hedgerows. Gate & stiles occasionally get
moved. These tweaks often don't make it back to the Definitive
Map.<BR><BR><SPAN
style="WHITE-SPACE: nowrap">Please verify using this data <WBR>doesn't make OSM less <WBR>accurate.</SPAN><BR><BR>Cheers<BR>DaveF<BR><BR><SPAN
style="WHITE-SPACE: nowrap">---</SPAN><BR><SPAN
style="WHITE-SPACE: nowrap">This email has been checked <WBR>for viruses by Avast <WBR>antivirus software.</SPAN><BR><SPAN
style="WHITE-SPACE: nowrap"><A href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target=_blank>https://www.avast.com/<WBR>antivirus</A></SPAN><BR><BR><BR>______________________________<WBR>_________________<BR><SPAN
style="WHITE-SPACE: nowrap">Talk-GB mailing list</SPAN><BR><SPAN
style="WHITE-SPACE: nowrap"><A href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org"
target=_blank>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</A></SPAN><BR><SPAN
style="WHITE-SPACE: nowrap"><A
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb"
target=_blank>https://lists.openstreetmap.<WBR>org/listinfo/talk-gb</A></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P></P>
<HR>
<P></P>______________________________<WBR>_________________<BR>Talk-GB
mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org"
target=_blank>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</A><BR><A
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb"
target=_blank>https://lists.openstreetmap.<WBR>org/listinfo/talk-gb</A><BR>
<P></P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>
<HR
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #b0b0b0; WIDTH: 99%; HEIGHT: 1px; COLOR: #909090; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none">
<TABLE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none">
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 8px; PADDING-RIGHT: 15px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0px"><A
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target=_blank><IMG border=0
alt="Avast logo"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"> </A></TD>
<TD>
<P
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','Verdana','Arial','Helvetica'; COLOR: #3d4d5a; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">This
email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. <BR><A
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target=_blank>www.avast.com</A>
</P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR></DIV><BR>______________________________<WBR>_________________<BR>Talk-GB
mailing list<BR><A
href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</A><BR><A
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" rel=noreferrer
target=_blank>https://lists.openstreetmap.<WBR>org/listinfo/talk-gb</A><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</BODY></HTML>