<html><head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body><div>On Mon, 2017-02-06 at 14:53 +0000, Andy Townsend wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/02/2017 11:18, Colin Smale wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:27dcfcfca0647d2a3199fb8dbc96b53a@xs4all.nl" type="cite">
<p>On 2017-02-06 09:57, Dave F wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left:
#1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"><!-- html ignored -->
<!-- head ignored --><!-- meta ignored --> On 05/02/2017 11:33,
Colin Smale wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left:
#1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
We should be mapping what's on the ground, as PROW signs &
stiles indicate, even if that doesn't correspond with the
definitive map. They should be tagged to correspond with the
signs status.</blockquote>
<p>Not sure I agree with this - the "on the ground" principle can
be taken too far. The real principle is "objective
verifiability" - so two independent "mappers" would come to the
same conclusion. That doesn't always imply that things are
actually visible on site, only that there is an agreed "single
point of truth". In my book that single point of truth would be
the Definitive Map and Definitive Statement, and NOT the signs.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
To be honest, I think just applying a bit of common sense is the
thing to do here. I normally "map what's on the ground" but it's
pretty common to find PRoW signs pointing in odd directions, often
where some local scally has decided to have a play with the sign.
You can usually figure out where it's supposed to go though, usually
from signage along the way. Similarly many people in a particular
area can point to "the footpath that officially goes through
someone's house" or "the footpath that officially goes through a
sewage farm". Usually these are just an error (FSVO error) on
whatever map they occur on (for all the reasons already discussed).<br>
<br>
Adding an source explicit source for "designation" if it's not
on-the-ground signage does make sense to me though, if only to avoid
the problems that we had with people "helpfully" filling in names
from OS Locator (even when a split-second of thought would have
suggested that those names might not be corrent due to obvious
spelling errors etc.). <br>
<br>
Of course, not all "obviously wrong" paths are wrong, though - like
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.02259/-1.45416">http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.02259/-1.45416</a> which is a
footpath through a (former) pub.<br>
<br><br></blockquote><pre>
</pre><pre>As Andy says, it is important to use common sense and to remember that the definitive line was never surveyed so the line shown may never have been the line (or even possible).</pre><pre><br></pre><pre>The definitive map as drawn onto OS maps in the 1950s by Parish Councils, some were better and more conscientious than others. But mistakes were made, pens slipped and at that </pre><pre>time fewer people will have been familiar with map reading.</pre><pre><br></pre><pre>Most of the time the system works well and right of way mapping is one of the areas we can excel and produce a better map. We can map surveyed lines and also map the 'barriers'. It is </pre><pre>important that we map the positions of stiles, gates and kissing gates.</pre><pre><br></pre><pre>We should certainly not map a path as permissive just because it differs from the line on the definitive map, 50m is a rough guide for it accuracy. If its the surveyed line then its the path.</pre><pre><br></pre><pre>Phil (trigpoint)</pre></body></html>