<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">This is just fantastic, thank you.<div><br></div><div>Looking at the definitive map there is a RoW there, but it seems <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/729709956">that the path as shown on OSM</a> is only roughly right: it should actually run from the road at an angle of ~240deg rather than the ~220deg OSM shows, meeting Ermine Street a few tens of metres further north.</div><div><br></div><div>The <a href="https://peterborough.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=1e47538c3218418e86741bf13a33a04b">argis.com map that Peterborough City Council uses</a> gives it as a FP called "Ailsworth 6" running from <span style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0.498);color:rgb(255,255,255);font-family:"Avenir Light",Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;font-size:11px">511,025.344 298,855.444 Meters</span> to <span style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0.498);color:rgb(255,255,255);font-family:"Avenir Light",Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;font-size:11px">510,856.672 298,723.814 Meters</span> </div><div><br></div><div>I don't recognise that coordinate system: is it any help for OSM? </div><div><br></div><div>Or is there a way to use those coordinates on the ground to follow Martin's excellent suggestion to retread the path, exactly where there is a right to?</div><div><br></div><div>And generally, are we allowed to copy from the definitive map, if we copy the RoW info only and snap that to OSM data rather than OS underlying data?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for all points made.</div><div><br></div><div>Edward </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 20:41, Andy Townsend <<a href="mailto:ajt1047@gmail.com">ajt1047@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="gmail-m_5911636221813800388moz-cite-prefix">On 29/09/2019 19:37, Edward Bainton
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div>Do I mark a track, with all it's passability tags, and then
tag horses & foot=designated? That acknowledges the track,
but disregards the documentation <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway#England_and_Wales:_Public_bridleways" target="_blank">here</a> which says "<span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">Public
bridleways should be tagged:<span class="gmail-m_5911636221813800388gmail-Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><tt dir="ltr" class="gmail-m_5911636221813800388gmail-mw-content-ltr" style="font-size:1em;font-family:monospace,monospace;direction:ltr;background-color:rgb(238,238,255);line-height:1.6"><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway" title="Key:highway" style="text-decoration-line:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);background-image:none" target="_blank">highway</a>=<a class="gmail-m_5911636221813800388gmail-mw-selflink gmail-m_5911636221813800388gmail-selflink" style="text-decoration:inherit;color:inherit;background-image:none;font-weight:bold">bridleway</a></tt><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span class="gmail-m_5911636221813800388gmail-Apple-converted-space"> </span>and<span class="gmail-m_5911636221813800388gmail-Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><tt dir="ltr" class="gmail-m_5911636221813800388gmail-mw-content-ltr" style="font-size:1em;font-family:monospace,monospace;direction:ltr;background-color:rgb(238,238,255);line-height:1.6"><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation" title="Key:designation" style="text-decoration-line:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);background-image:none" target="_blank">designation</a>=public_bridleway"</tt> . </div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I've edited the relevant wiki page to make it clearer:<br>
</p>
<p><a class="gmail-m_5911636221813800388moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway#England_and_Wales%3A_Public_bridleways" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway#England_and_Wales%3A_Public_bridleways</a></p>
<p>If something is designated as a public bridleway add the
"designation=public_bridleway" tag. This is separate to the
highway tag - that might be highway=bridleway, but as you point
out could very easily be highway=track or highway=service. I've
also seen examples that on the ground really aren't substantial
enough to be called highway=bridleway, but are legally signed as
that.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div>2. </div>
<div>What should I do with <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/729709956" target="_blank">this footpath</a>, which appears on
OSM and also on <a href="http://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=511004&y=298838&z=115&sv=511004,298838&st=4&ar=y&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf&dn=577&ax=511004&ay=298838&lm=0" target="_blank">the OS map</a> as a public footpath. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There is absolutely no indication of it on the ground: no
beaten path, no fingerboard, no break in the hedge at the SW
end (it wouldn't need one at the NE end, open country). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Do I delete as probably sourced from OS, or leave as it's a
right of way?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>That's a good question. Cambridgeshire is listed at
<a class="gmail-m_5911636221813800388moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors</a> , so I suspect
that the data from the council would be licence-appropriate for
OSM per
<a class="gmail-m_5911636221813800388moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility</a> .</p>
<p>If there's no physical access through a hedge I'd definitely
ensure that there isn't a "highway=footway" running through a
hedge.</p>
<p>Given the complicated history of the ways involved, it isn't
necessarily the case that someone "copied from OS"; they may just
have seen a public footpath sign at one end and tagged the way
there, unaware that the footpath crossed several roads and went
through a hedge. I've certainly done that in the past. In fact:</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(For some reason the history shows me as the author of
Version #1 of that path, but actually it long predated my
edits in this area. iirc the history, before my edits
elsewhere apparently over-wrote it, showed it as added several
years ago)</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It is possible to find out what happened here. Here's a query
for the ways in mid-2015:</p>
<p><a class="gmail-m_5911636221813800388moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MHs" target="_blank">https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MHs</a></p>
<p>and here's one for mid-2016:</p>
<p><a class="gmail-m_5911636221813800388moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MHt" target="_blank">https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MHt</a></p>
<p>The way that was there before many, many splits is
<a class="gmail-m_5911636221813800388moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/210211088/history" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/210211088/history</a> , and the edit
that joined it to the Peterborough road was
<a class="gmail-m_5911636221813800388moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35688401" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35688401</a> back at the end
of 2015 (the changeset comment helpfully says that the GPS trace
used was from June 2015). Obviously back then it's quite possible
that there was signage and no hedge.</p>
<p>Best Regards,</p>
<p>Andy</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
_______________________________________________<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>