<div dir="ltr">What I have done in such situations is:<br><br><ul><li>Remove designation tags from the actually used paths. Access with foot=yes is <br></li><li>Add the formal line of the path with the designation tag and access tags, but without highway tags.</li></ul><p>Specific examples I've mapped in the past couple of years:</p><ul><li><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/293561685">Laxton Bridleway 2</a>. This is clearly signed from the road, but the line across crops/ploughed field is never used, probably because there is a ditch or drain at the road end. Andy (SomeoneElse) has also surveyed this path from the current path in use which skirts the edge of the wood.</li><li><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/466045433">Scalford Footpath E27</a>. There is a set-aside strip around the field and this is used in lieu of the official line.</li><li><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/465782029">Scalford Footpath F22</a>. The official line of this path is built over. There are no traces of the path at it's northern end, but it obviously should start from a stile which is overgrown by a couple of feet of hawthorn. When I enquired about this path, the council wrote back "Unfortunately the farm buildings obstructing the Footpath have been
there for many years. This is obviously not something the County
Council condones but fortunately Footpaths F24 and F22 do provide
alternative access and therefore the
problems with F23 take a low priority."</li><li><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/52.95054/-1.37437&layers=D">Stanley Footpath 13 & Dale Abbey Footpaths 26 & 28</a> . Two fields with a couple of examples of official lines crossing the field diagonally and being replaced on the ground by paths closer to the edges of the field (and probably reflecting better the actual desire lines of regular walkers).</li></ul><p>In most cases the tagging is fairly ad hoc to meet the situation that I encounter. As I am seeing more examples I am adding more information in the form of additional tags, and in the process being more consistent. In general I only add the official lines when there is adequate information on the ground to identify them. For instance there are no traces of Trowell FP 16 on the ground, so I have not added anything to <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.9584/-1.2531">OSM</a>.</p><p>There is a thread from earlier this year discussing a similar issue.</p><p>Regards,</p><p>Jerry<br></p><p>PS. Apologies for accidentally sending a near-blank message<br></p></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 29 September 2017 at 14:35, Bob Hawkins <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bobhawkins@waitrose.com" target="_blank">bobhawkins@waitrose.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">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="FONT-SIZE:12pt;FONT-FAMILY:'Calibri';COLOR:#000000">
<div>I should be interested to learn the general consensus regarding definitive
alignments of Public Rights of Way and paths actually walked, and whether
contributors have similar predicaments to mine. I have two cases in
Shiplake, Oxfordshire:</div>
<div>1. Shiplake FP 37 <span><font color="#222222"><font face="Arial"><font style="FONT-SIZE:9pt">Footpath<span class="m_5279560482354191821Apple-converted-space"> </span></font></font></font></span><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/528052488" target="_blank"><font face="Arial"><font style="FONT-SIZE:9pt" color="#2244dd"><font style="TEXT-DECORATION:none">#528052488</font></font></font></a> <span><font face="Arial" color="#222222"><font style="FONT-SIZE:9pt">Changeset
#</font></font></span><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52405541" target="_blank"><font face="Arial"><font style="FONT-SIZE:9pt" color="#2244dd"><font style="TEXT-DECORATION:none">52405541</font></font></font></a></div>
<div><font color="#222222">I had labelled the straight line path to the kissing
gate before the railway as <span><font style="FONT-SIZE:9pt"><font style="FONT-SIZE:12pt" color="#000000">Shiplake FP
37</font></font></span></font>, originally. Since devoting my time to
adding PRoW information in the Oxfordshire Chilterns and using Oxfordshire
County Council’s Countryside Access Map, I have become aware of official path
alignments. I pondered long and hard over this issue. I decided,
finally, that it would be incorrect to label the straight line to the kissing
gate before the railway as footpath 37, although this is the path used for a
long time, and it makes no sense to walk the official alignment in an open,
grassed field. There has been nothing official to change its alignment, as
far as I am aware, however. I felt the best solution was to map footpath
37 as the Countryside Access Map shows, label it as such, and re-label the
straight line as foot=yes, highway=footway alone. Should anything arise to
prevent that, it can be removed instantly without affecting anything else.</div>
<div>2. Shiplake FP 10<font color="#222222"><font face="Arial"> </font><span><font face="Arial"><font style="FONT-SIZE:9pt">Footpath<span class="m_5279560482354191821Apple-converted-space"> </span></font></font></span></font><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23639524" target="_blank"><font style="FONT-SIZE:9pt" color="#2244dd"><font style="TEXT-DECORATION:none" face="Arial">#23639524</font></font></a><font face="Arial"><font color="#222222"> <span><font style="FONT-SIZE:9pt">Changeset #</font></span></font></font><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52419186" target="_blank"><font style="FONT-SIZE:9pt" color="#2244dd"><font style="TEXT-DECORATION:none" face="Arial">52419186</font></font></a></div>
<div>The opposite applies to footpath 10: walkers in this case take the
right-angled fence line from the stile (at the junction with Shiplake FP 11)
towards Plough Lane while the Countryside Access Map shows footpath 10 crossing
the field diagonally from a point before the stile. This has the effect of
labelling the short section immediately before the stile wrongly as footpath 10
when it should be footpath 11. I plan to visit the site and alter OSM with
the same attitude as for footpath 37.</div>
<div>With regards</div>
<div>Bob Hawkins</div></div></div><div id="m_5279560482354191821DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top:1px solid #d3d4de">
<tbody><tr>
<td style="width:55px;padding-top:13px"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" style="width:46px;height:29px" width="46" height="29"></a></td>
<td style="width:470px;padding-top:12px;color:#41424e;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px">Virus-free. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" style="color:#4453ea" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table><a href="#m_5279560482354191821_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></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>