[Talk-GB] Composite mapping (OSM and OS, PRoWs etc)

Luke Smith luke.smith at grough.co.uk
Fri Sep 9 12:42:38 UTC 2016

Dudley was quite right, if there's a section of path in the PRoW dataset
our code would fill in the gap, on the assumption it was incomplete. If
there's a clear logical way of indicating a legal right of way that can't
be used in reality then I'll gladly update the code to reflect it. It's a
difficult one, because in theory without a Public Path Order, the highway
authority could turn up tomorrow and enforce the right of way, not that it
happens often.

I understand most highway authorities have mailing lists for updates to
public rights of way, which include interested parties on parish councils,
Ordnance Survey and sometimes Harvey Maps etc. Because grough has a good
working relationship with the Lake District NPA they offered to add us to
theirs (though ironically, haven't published any PRoW opendata), but I was
considering contacting other authorities and requesting to be added to any
PRoW mailing lists they have.

If successful in getting signed up to enough of these lists, we'd happily
develop and maintain some sort of database for the information we receive,
which might help keep track of new footpaths and diversion orders. Where
footpaths have their references in OSM it should be trivial to find them.
In other cases you'd need to consult the OS map accompanying the order. I'm
not sure the authorities would consent to these being publicly accessible
online, if they're not already.


On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:12 PM, SK53 <sk53.osm at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9 September 2016 at 12:35, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net>
> wrote:
>> Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
>> > it would be interesting to know what routers make of highway=no.
>> From
>> https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/blob/master/pro
>> files/foot.lua:
>>   ...
>> I'm not enormously comfortable with highway=no - it's a bit like the
>> justly
>> discouraged amenity=pub, disused=yes. The designation= tag should be
>> enough
>> on its own for something that isn't actually a highway on the ground.
>> (Maybe
>> one could invent a namespaced highway tag but I can't immediately think of
>> anything suitable...)
>> cheers
>> Richard
> This is exactly what we did with this PRoW which is signposted but never
> used as the track round the edge of the field is more convenient:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/293561685.
> I was looking at  East & West Sussex council websites the other day
> (following up a note from a MapBox mapper) and they have lists of
> temporarily closed and obstructed PRoWs. If this type of information could
> be put into a common format (something like prow_ref, start GR, end GR,
> closure dates) and either provided by councils or crowd-sourced then this
> could be a useful way of identifying paths which ought not to be shown.
> Gating orders in towns are another consideration.
> Fortunately Carmarthenshire haven't released their data: working out which
> footpaths are viable is a tough task for much of the authority's area.
> Jerry
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20160909/39028dd5/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list