[Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 55, Issue 44

Mike Harris mikh43 at googlemail.com
Sat Apr 23 10:01:05 BST 2011


I think - and it's only my opinion for what it's worth - that Nick's 
point may fall into a grey area. My understanding is that there are in 
practice at least four kinds of way that get called "permissive":

a. Ones where there has been a formal written agreement made with the 
Highway Authority (often as part of a negotiation around the diversion 
of a public right of way). These are  usually waymarked - at least at 
each end - with the usual white plastic disc - but in this case the disc 
should carry the word "permissive" (amongst any other wording) and/or 
carry a white arrow on a black background (not black on yellow or any 
other combination including yellow).
b. Ones where there has been an agreement made on a less formal basis 
with the Highway Authority but where no written agreement is on file 
(sloppy practice but ...). These may or may not be waymarked as above.
c. Ones which are informal in the sense that "everyone knows" (basically 
meaning the locals) that it's OK. May or may not be waymarked in some 
way or other. Includes paths created by local charities, parish 
councils, etc. where there is no formal agreement or actual legal right 
of way.

d. The fourth category is formal inasmuch as the landowner is in receipt 
of public funds for allowing the use of the way. These are often called 
"DEFRA paths" and all listed on http://cwr.naturalengland.org.uk/ . 
These should be signed at each end with a posted map. The maps are also 
available at the URL given in the previous sentence.

As we all know, the OS also depicts some permissive paths on some of 
their mapping (in orange rather than green). Personally, I don't know 
what status these paths are or where the OS gets its information (I 
would assume from Highway Authorities so the paths concerned are 
probably type (a) in my listing above).

As for OSM use, my own feeling - and it is no more than that - is that 
assuming one of us has walked and recorded the path on the ground:

1. Type (a) could be recorded as a permissive path if  the information 
comes from the Highway Authority e.g. the existence of the written 
agreement - but not based on its presence on an OS map.
2. Type (b) like type (a) but probably not on the OS map anyway.
3. Type (c) - based on local knowledge.
4. Type (d) - I simply don't know! Perhaps someone could take a look at 
the web site I have mentioned and offer a view!


On 22/04/2011 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 Public Right Of Way map for Northumberland
>        (Nick Whitelegg)
>     2. Re: National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap (monxton)
>     3. Re: National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap
>        (Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists))
>     4. Re: National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap (David Dixon)
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

*/Mike Harris/*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20110423/400cf219/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list