<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 class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><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:none;color:#909090;background-color:#b0b0b0;height:1px;width:99%">
<table style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none">
<tbody><tr>
<td style="border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px">
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">
<img src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" border="0">
</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" 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>