[Talk-GB] Fwd: Re: Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19

Thu May 13 15:50:14 BST 2010

Whoops - resending as I used the wrong account at my end and got bumped 
by the lists moderator - silly me!

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19
Date: 	Thu, 13 May 2010 15:44:31 +0100
From: 	Mike Harris <mikh at delco.idps.co.uk>
To: 	Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) <ajrlists at googlemail.com>
CC: 	'Mike Harris' <mikh43 at googlemail.com>, talk-gb at openstreetmap.org

Andy

I could do that - but which wiki page do you think would be the most 
appropriate? Obviously this is 'only' an 'England and Wales' issue - 
albeit important for those of us who OSM etc. around this patch of the 
world!

Mike

On 13/05/2010 10:51, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
> 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 Even "the" definitive map may be a bit out of date as HAs often have a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
>>
>>      
>
>    

-- 
*Mike Harris*

-- 
*/Mike Harris/*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20100513/22081347/attachment-0001.html>