<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
The main aim, though, of this project is to investigate, using the historical maps, historical rights of way for the point of view of gathering evidence to re-open them before 2026. </div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
A possible side-effect of this is to locate new paths to map for OSM. Such paths would not, of course, be tagged with a designation (unless they are legally re-opened) but if there is evidence of use, they could certainly be added as a highway=footway at the
very least.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Nick<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div id="Signature">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" dir="ltr" style="color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt">
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"></p>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk><br>
<b>Sent:</b> 01 October 2019 13:56<br>
<b>To:</b> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Talk-GB] Resurrecting the 'find the missing paths for 2026' project</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">On 30/09/2019 18:25, Nick Whitelegg wrote:<br>
> I made a start on this about a year ago, here's a quck mock-up showing <br>
> council data in colours and OSM paths shown in white as a 'tippex' <br>
> effect. This allows the identification of historical 'F.P' footpaths on <br>
> the historical maps which do not correspond either to current council <br>
> RoWs or current OSM paths, and thus would be candidates for <br>
> investigation to see if the path is in a usable state or there is <br>
> evidence of use.<br>
<br>
Such paths are not going to have finger boards with "public footpath" on <br>
them. In other threads, I sense quite a strong lobby for only mapping <br>
rights of way that are so marked on the ground and ignoring any <br>
designation that only appears in a map.<br>
<br>
As such, you will end up with at best a permissive status recorded on <br>
OSM. Even that is actually likely to be subjective.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-GB mailing list<br>
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>