[Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

Steven Horner steven at stevenhorner.com
Mon Dec 31 13:34:14 GMT 2012


Andy raised several good points regarding tagging and references but not
sure I would agree about ignoring paths if not existing on the ground.
Officially if a path exists on the Definitive map then you have the right
to walk it, this is the information I was given by the PRoW team when I
became a volunteer ranger years ago in County Durham. As part of that I
adopted several paths I agreed to walk and report any problems.

Dudley is correct regarding a deadline, a few months ago I wrote a post
regarding some local footpaths and this mentions the deadline:
http://stevenhorner.com/blog/2012/06/06/kittys-wood-public-rights-of-way/
I have seen lots of paths that are PRoW that have been blocked off and/or
diverted usually without notifying the local Council. You can report these
and I would encourage everyone to do this or you will lose them.

Andy: I can see in the link you mentioned where the track isn't marked on
the ground, it is marked on OS Maps, not the one around the edge. From
looking at both Bing & Google satellites it does look like a fainter track
does exist at the location and the more obvious one skirts the edge. A more
interesting example of the differences between on the ground and recorded
PRoW exists here (just NE of your link):
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.91864&lon=-0.77876&zoom=17&layers=M
The actual recorded PRoW  (byway) as shown by OS cuts the corner slightly,
but is shown as not being visible on the ground (the PRoW Byway route is
not recoreded on OSM). The green lines on Explorer maps only show that a
PRoW exists, it is only visible on the ground if it has black dashed lines
under it.

To my mind it would be good if somehow via tags OSM could do something
similar.
designation: public_footpath is only used if it's a PRoW, if it's not
tagged as such then it's not an official PRoW. That is how I understood it
to be used. The surface tag possibly shows if it exists on the ground but
not very reliably because you may tag as grass but is it visible.


Steven


On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Steven Horner <steven at stevenhorner.com>wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have been adding to OSM for about 18 months but more active in recent
> weeks. I have requested the PRoW from Durham County Council, they currently
> have not released their data but do have it electronically, just
> not publicly available to download yet. Their response was more postive
> than I expected they were looking into it already and were hoping to have a
> more official response before Xmas (haven't yet).
>
> I have added several footpaths locally but I am often left wondering how
> to tag these or how to break them into sections. I have followed the
> guidelines at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines but
> should I tag the footpath with the local authority reference which would
> aid logging the path to the Council if problems like FixMyPaths<http://www.free-map.org.uk/hampshire/>,
> if so how?
>
> The other question is do I add the footpath exactly as the Council &
> Ordnance Survey have recorded it or amend it, if I know it is incorrect on
> the ground. Currently I have added it as per my own GPX tracks and local
> knowledge which is more accurate, but officially the PRoW isn't recorded as
> I have added it to OSM. Do I continue as I have, add both tagged
> differently or some other way?
>
> Finally should I split the path I have added if it is recorded as
> two separate paths on the definitive maps. I'm sure this must of been
> discussed somewhere before and I have missed it?
>
> *PRoW from OS:*
> I read Bill Chadwick's mention of hopefully one day the OS would release
> national paths as Open Data. I don't think that will happen soon, as part
> of the OS Insight program they were recently testing a new product that
> included all footpaths in vector format. This will be a commercial product,
> so unlikely they will be releasing it as Open Data themselves.
>
> Thanks
> Steven
>
> --
> www.stevenhorner.com  <http://www.stevenhorner.com>
>  @stevenhorner <http://twitter.com/stevenhorner>
>
>


-- 
www.stevenhorner.com  <http://www.stevenhorner.com>
 @stevenhorner <http://twitter.com/stevenhorner>
 0191 645 2265
 stevenhorner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20121231/81d55627/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list