[Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19

Thu May 13 10:51:22 BST 2010

Mike,

A very comprehensive reply, thanks for that. It would be worth having what
you have written on a relevant wiki page as its probably the best write-up
of the arrangements as we know them.

Cheers

Andy

>-----Original Message-----
>From: talk-gb-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-
>bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Mike Harris
>Sent: 13 May 2010 9:06 AM
>To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19
>
>Hi
>
>My understanding of PRoW law is that:
>
>1. The definitive statement (which is prepared by an actual survey on the
>ground - not from a map - although it might subsequently be plotted onto a
>map) takes precedence over the definitive map where there are differences
>between the two. Thus the statement should not involve the OS.
>2. The definitive map - properly defined - is the copy kept by the Highway
>Authority (HA). There may be 'definitive map copies' issued in hard copy to
>involved parties (like the charity for which I work) or in electronic form
>(some HAs issue full 'interactive' versions of the definitive map on the
>web). These have no legal standing - although very useful - and may not be
>as up-to-date as "THE" definitive map.
>3. Even "the" definitive map may be a bit out of date as HAs often have a
>backlog in creating the "Definitive Map Modification Orders" (DMMOs) that
>enshrine a change in the PRoW network (diversion, creation, extinguishment,
>dedication) - this backlog may be more than a year in some areas and will
>worsen as funds disappear under present financial constraints.
>4. OS mapping at 1:25k of PRoWs relies (especially outside of urban areas
>and ways on the 'List of Streets') on the OS being notified of any changes.
>This is often done (but rather haphazardly) by the HA - but can equally be
>done by a member of the public. They do not keep PRoWs up-to-date pro-
>actively. Even when notified, the OS may take years to do an update. In
>theory the update should be on the next copy of the relevant 1:25k map (and
>does tend to appear earlier on digital than on paper versions) but it can -
>and often does - take several years. Complex and major changes in my area
>have taken over 10 years of constant nagging to get the OS to update!
>5. Anomalies on the ground  with OS mapping are common. I log about 100 per
>annum in my area. There may also be anomalies on the ground compared with
>the definitive map. These two sets of anomalies may themselves differ.
>Anomalies include:
>
>- minor unofficial diversions made by the landowner (or sometimes the
>general public!) for convenience. This does not change the line of the
>PRoW.
>- major unofficial diversions made by a landowner for his/her convenience
>(sometimes with the legal route being blocked). This does not change the
>line of the PRoW.
>- official diversions not yet recorded by the OS (see above). This does not
>change the line of the PRoW.
>- genuine legal anomalies such as a path ending at a parish boundary (often
>because the magistrate charged with making the definitive map record was
>also the local landowner and 'forgot' to record the path on the original
>definitive map).
>- 'lost ways' that got missed off the original definitive map (and under
>current legislation will be lost for ever if not added by 2025).
>
>It's complicated and I'm not advising anyone what to do or not do (apart
>from forcing the OS to come clean and disavow any copyright interest in
>PRoW data - as others have said, the HAs are usually more than happy to
>release PRoW data as part of their public duty but unfortunately the OS
>have lost all sense of public duty - as opposed to commercial self-interest
>- unless pressured).
>
>mikh43
>
>On 12/05/2010 12:00, talk-gb-request at openstreetmap.org wrote:
>
>	Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to
>		talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
>
>	To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>		http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>	or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>		talk-gb-request at openstreetmap.org
>
>	You can reach the person managing the list at
>		talk-gb-owner at openstreetmap.org
>
>	When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>	than "Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest..."
>
>
>
>	Today's Topics:
>
>	   1. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (Robert Whittaker (OSM Talk
>GB))
>	   2. Re: National Byway cycle route (Dave F.)
>	   3. Re: National Byway cycle route (Sam Vekemans)
>	   4. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (Andy Robinson (blackadder-
>lists))
>	   5. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (Andy Robinson (blackadder-
>lists))
>	   6. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (James Davis)
>
>
>
>	_______________________________________________
>	Talk-GB mailing list
>	Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>	http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
>--
>Mike Harris
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2870 - Release Date: 05/12/10
>19:26:00
>