[Talk-GB] Byway between Muston and Belvoir (was "Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM")

Steven Horner steven at stevenhorner.com
Mon Dec 31 14:44:18 GMT 2012

By Public Way Identifiers I presume you mean a public footpath or bridleway
sign and the direction they point. I had an angry confrontation once with a
farmer who would have would of worn my finger out if I had a bleep machine.

I had walked across his field according to the map which was a couple of
years old and got to the end of the field to find a padlocked gate. I
returned back to the sign and it was pointing in a different direction
(straight ahead) and also had 3 way markers all pointing straight ahead. I
presumed the route had been changed so followed the arrow after a about 50
yards I heard various abuse from over the wall. The farmer was angry that
we weren't following the map and could we read one. We explained (or tried
to) but he said the gate was someone elses and that was the only way we
could go. There were no visible paths on the ground in any direction.

Ever since then I have never trusted signs and the direction they point. In
this case we thought the path had been changed because there were so many
signs and way markers all pointing a different direction to the map.


On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 2:15 PM, SomeoneElse <lists at mail.atownsend.org.uk>wrote:

> Steven Horner wrote:
>>  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<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.91864&lon=-0.77876&zoom=17&layers=M>
> For information I've made the GPS trace public:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/**user/SomeoneElse/traces/**1360385<http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/traces/1360385>
> It's got waypoints in it - look for those labelled "sym=Boat Ramp" for
> PROW identifiers.
>  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.
> The relevant PROW identifiers are adjacent to these OSM nodes:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/**browse/node/480255185<http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/480255185>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/**browse/node/480255309<http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/480255309>
> The one at node 480255185 just makes it clear that the byway doesn't turn
> northwest.  The one at node 480255309 indicates south and vaguely
> northeast, but not so far different from the track around the edge of the
> field to be sure that the "official" right of way was definitely cutting
> the corner (unlike the other one by the canal bridge).
> At the time I was there the only transport options you could have used to
> cut the corner with would have been hovercraft or bog-snorkelling - even
> the main track was 6-inches deep in mud in most places.
> If we were able to incorporate PROW data from the council then in this
> case it would make sense to mode the "designation=byway_open_to_**all_traffic"
> to the direct corner-cutting route, since the sign at node 480255309 is
> ambiguous, but it wouldn't make sense to mark it as a highway.
> Cheers,
> Andy
> ______________________________**_________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gb<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>

www.stevenhorner.com  <http://www.stevenhorner.com>
 @stevenhorner <http://twitter.com/stevenhorner>
 0191 645 2265
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20121231/ff98162c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list