[Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey Public Sector Mapping Agreement

SK53 on OSM SK53_osm at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Mar 24 16:20:09 GMT 2011


On 24/03/2011 15:42, Peter Miller wrote:
>
> You make a good point. As far as I am aware the OS now allow derived 
> works for things drawn on their maps which weren't on the base map. In 
> the case of rights of way some of them are of course are on the 
> background OS layer which is a limitation (see example definite map - 
> link below). As such I don't think we can use the geometry even if we 
> wanted to.
> http://rushmerecommon.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/img_1074.jpg
>
> Also... I am less interested in rights of way than in paths that can 
> actually be used. There are rights of way around here that are under 
> water now that the rivers have widened. There are other excellent 
> paths that are not rights of way.
I think this is an important aspect of OSM, and the use of the 
designation tag takes us in this direction. There are huge numbers of 
well-used paths on the fringes of urban areas where public usage is more 
customary than official. Also in many upland areas there are paths which 
have never been marked on OS maps, and with access land now in place, 
are never likely to be so marked. The ability to locate these paths in 
mist or other bad weather can be a significant aid to safely walking in 
the hills.

The usefulness of the definitive statement seems to vary from council to 
council. Statements in Nottingham tend to be very detailed containing 10 
figure grid references of start and end points, widths, compass 
directions, distances and names of roads. On the other hand Windsor and 
Maidenhead seems to consist of just links to the Definitive Map 
<http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/prow_maps.htm>.
>
> Here is a nice example of an impossibly right of way where you would 
> need waders and a canoe to follow the path!
> http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=640205&Y=256605&A=Y&Z=120 
> <http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=640205&Y=256605&A=Y&Z=120>
>
> The thing that I believe we can lift from the definitive maps with 
> confidence is fact that it is a 'right of way' and the right of way 
> code. That was not in the OS base map.
>
To change subject, this location <http://osm.org/go/0EYGcVU1-> 
represents some of the hazards of current tagging of tidal waterways 
with riverbank (recently discussed elsewhere). I've had to get my feet 
wet at high tide even on the path on the S side of the Alde estuary from 
Snape heading for Iken around Iken Cliff. Improving tagging for this 
sort of thing ultimately relates to achieving decent mapping of 
practicability of paths.

There also exist PRoW where you can be actively discouraged from 
walking: for instance the bridleway N 
<http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=52.51674306015763%7E0.2686755359173221&lvl=15&dir=0&sty=s&eo=0&where1=Welney%2C%20Norfolk&q=welney&FORM=LMLTCC> 
from Wash Road on the left bank embankment of the New Bedford River at 
Welney. This overlooks the WWT reserve and people silouhetted on the 
skyline can cause considerable disturbance to the wildfowl. As a very 
naive birdwatcher I didn't know this, until I got a flea in my ear from 
a warden driving a tractor (which does not spook the birds).

Jerry

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20110324/a527620c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list