[Talk-GB] Definitive Ways - tagging? (was Re: Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19)

Mike Harris mikh43 at googlemail.com
Thu May 13 17:57:29 BST 2010


I would record both - but only if I walked both with GPS in hand - and 
add status where I know it - as per my previous response to Ian.

On 19:59, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
> Ian Spencer wrote:
>    
>> Sent: 13 May 2010 12:17 PM
>> To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Ways - tagging? (was Re: Talk-GB Digest,
>> Vol 44, Issue 19)
>>
>> I think it would be useful to have a think about how we might tag
>> validated definitive ways in addition to the public footpath recognising
>> that there are potentially 3 different versions of a path:
>>
>> 1) The official published rights of way - say from OS.
>> 2) OSM interpretation of rights of way (sourced from a combination of
>> survey, reinterpretation of LA data and OS data) which could differ.
>> (The difference between (1)&  (2) is the to-do list with the LA
>> effectively)
>> 3) The walkable paths which are considered by the public to be the way,
>> even if they are not the formal definition.
>>
>> While I wouldn't argue with a farmer based on OSM, if we knew what the
>> derivation was, and the status of any diversions, then at least you can
>> stride across that newly planted crop with a bit more confidence. I
>> don't think the current tagging regime exactly covers the above - and I
>> doubt there is great confidence in the legal validity of of a footpath
>> tagged in OSM as a Public Footpath.
>>      
> I just wouldn't go there. It's a big can of worms. If I find a path on the
> ground that's what goes in OSM. I try not to worry about whether it's a
> public right of way, permissive path or path that might or might not have
> rights because its not currently in the LA's ROW statements. Huge numbers of
> the latter type of path about of course.
>
> Where I end up doing a walk which takes me across a field (according to the
> current OS 1:25k map), but where I don't see any footfall, either across the
> field or around it, then I make that first footfall on the alignment of the
> OS map as best I can discern it. And the tracklog from that I upload and use
> for OSM. If on the other hand I see the OS has the path going straight
> through the sugarbeet but the footfall is clearly around the edge of the
> field, then it's the field boundary route what I walk, log and put in OSM.
> In my view it's not for us to try to be definitive, that's not our role, it
> is for us to map footpaths.
>
> Cheers
>
> Andy
>
>    
>> It seems to be that there should be a definitive-way tag with status of
>> yes, disputed, (and implicitly, no) and another of definitive-way-source
>> as you cannot establish a definitive way by GPS, even though you can for
>> the de facto line of the path (being able to see the difference could be
>> useful).
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>> Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote on 13/05/2010 10:51:
>>      
>>> 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:
>>>>          
>>>        
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>> 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/*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20100513/16090bf8/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list