<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">The difference with OS paper maps,
excluding Scotland, is that they show generic tracks/private roads
with no access information, but they also show RoWs on top
(especially on the 25k) or just map the RoW (25k where IIRC
there's a faint farm track and 50k in many places).</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">So a working assumption with their
paper maps is no RoW shown = no access down a farm track. That's
not possible where they've used OSM data, so they have deviated
form their paper approach</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Chris<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 21/04/2022 23:24, Jass Kurn wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAON5zANPEUSpTKx4ZnccBC8weD71WCR5onSGbFCmNVd-us8g8A@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">This is a tricky one. OS has added OSM way data to
some of their free products (linked to in other emails). Most
end users seeing this data will be using free OS apps for
walking & hiking. OS are not including OSM access data.
Apart from Public Footpaths/bridleway etc, I believe OS simply
do not map access data, that appears to be the style with their
paper maps. It can be argued that OS are simply carrying on with
their own historic mapping style of showing paths & tracks
without access data. These deleted tracks in question nearly all
appear in OS paper maps also without access info, but the style
of maps mean they tracks are less obvious. OS appears to have
decided it is up to the person using the map on the ground to
gather the access info, and the landowner to clearly show
allowed access.<br>
<br>
The OSM data was correct; the use of OSM data by subsequent data
users must not be grounds for the track to simply be deleted. I
am sympathetic with the issues faced by the land owner, but the
solution must not be the deletion of correct data. If it was
allowed, the misuse of OSM could result in most of our data
slowly disappearing. A solution would be for someone to reach
out to OS to ask for access data to be included, or for them not
to show ways with access=private. But... this implies OS should
be doing the same thing with their paper maps. If they accept a
problem is caused in one instance, can they then ignore the
same issue in their paper maps?<br>
<br>
I think the data must be reinstated. Maybe someone can reach out
to the landowner explaining it is an OS issue (if someone
misuses their milk they should not be forced to stop producing
it?), and also put the problem to OS?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jass</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 at 19:29,
Michael Booth <<a href="mailto:boothym@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">boothym@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">OSM
paths / tracks now appear in some of their products - if you
go to <br>
first link there's no tracks, but the banner at the top takes
you to the <br>
second link which does have them.<br>
<br>
<a
href="https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/53.11063,-2.30352,17"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/53.11063,-2.30352,17</a><br>
<br>
<a
href="https://explore.osmaps.com/?lat=53.111347&lon=-2.302351&zoom=15.2478&overlays=&style=Standard&type=2d"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://explore.osmaps.com/?lat=53.111347&lon=-2.302351&zoom=15.2478&overlays=&style=Standard&type=2d</a><br>
<br>
The tracks (tagged as private) look exactly like the public
footpath <br>
running across the fields, so I can see why people could
follow them if <br>
relying on OS maps. OS should really be showing them
differently to <br>
public paths as no doubt there are other paths and tracks on
the map <br>
with access restriction which look exactly the same.<br>
<br>
There is no activity along the tracks on Strava's heatmap, so
these are <br>
clearly not used by the public (unlike the footpath).<br>
<br>
But even without using a map, it looks like someone could
either wander <br>
off the public footpath onto the tracks (at the stile), or
join the <br>
tracks from the main roads (surely there are signs?). Removing
the <br>
tracks from OSM won't stop that, and as you say they could
just be added <br>
again by another mapper who does not know anything about the
situation.<br>
<br>
On 21/04/2022 18:28, George Honeywood wrote:<br>
> Hi all,<br>
><br>
> I've received some messages from a user [1] regarding
private tracks that run through their farm. A year ago they
deleted these tracks from OSM, and about a month after that I
reinstated them, adding access=private [2].<br>
><br>
> [1]: <a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Rob%20Moss/history"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Rob%20Moss/history</a><br>
> [2]: <a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/102054359"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/102054359</a><br>
><br>
> Since then they have had people walk down these private
tracks, and so, have removed them again. From my point of view
it is better to leave them on the map, with access=private, as
this should discourage people from using these paths -- and
prevents another armchair mapper from re-adding them as non
private tracks later on.<br>
><br>
> I am confused as the people were led down this private
track by the "OS APP". This is presumably offered by Ordnance
Survey -- which probably wouldn't be using OSM data, and even
if it does, it should make private tracks look private, like
Mapnik greys them on <a href="http://osm.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">osm.org</a>.<br>
><br>
> I think this is a bit above my pay grade, hence messaging
the list (and I won't be making any further edits). Obviously
it isn't good to have people walking down dangerous private
tracks, but I don't think removing them from OSM is the way to
go. If any of you have experience with the OS Maps app then it
would be good to know if it uses OSM data, and if so how it
handles access=private.<br>
><br>
> For context here are the private messages:<br>
><br>
> Their first message:<br>
>> Dear Sir, we had someone injured yesterday by a herd
of cattle using our private farm track. They were on the track
when met by 100 cows. They were following an edit done by
yourself 10 months ago; the edit to re-add the track is
showing as a footpath in the OS APP. Your edits are leading
people off the footpaths into two busy private farm yards. I
am unsure why you would be doing this!? Regards. Rob<br>
> My reply:<br>
>> Hi Rob,<br>
>> Sorry, I think there has been a bit of confusion
here. <a href="http://openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">openstreetmap.org</a>,
the website/database, isn’t related to the OS Maps app. That
app is run by Ordnance Survey, not OpenStreetMap.<br>
>> On OpenStreetMap, the farm tracks are a grey colour,
which indicates that are private, meaning the public shouldn’t
use them. Route planners that use OpenStreetMap data should
also reflect this, routing via the public footpaths instead of
the private tracks.<br>
>> If there are more tracks that need to be marked
private in OpenStreetMap, please edit them as such (or you can
point out to me which ones need changing and I can edit them).
If the issue is with the Ordnance Survey map then you’d be
better off speaking to them.<br>
>> Apologies for any inconvenience, George<br>
> Their second message:<br>
>> Dear George, There is no confusion. I have spoken to
the OSMaps team and their app is updated from the maps you
have edited. Hence my message directly to yourself. I deleted
the tracks off the open street map having previously met a
family while on the tractor….you then decided you know better
than and reinstated them? There was a note connected to the
revision which detailed the reason for deleting the tracks. I
cannot understand why you would do this, it has caused a lady
a nasty injury to her leg. If you genuinely did this as a
mistake/didn’t realise the consequences of your actions then
please take more care in the future. Regards Rob<br>
> Thanks for any thoughts on this,<br>
> George Honeywood<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Talk-GB mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
> <a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-GB mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>