[Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

[Colin Smale]

Hi Rob, 

An illegal ad-hoc diversion is (usually) a de facto path so it can be
recorded as such in OSM. But the access rights are a different issue.
There is no PROW over the "straight line" in your second example. If it
crosses a farmer's field it is permissive at best and private at worst,
but if it crosses common land it the public may still have a legal right
of access. The actual route of the legal right of way is what the DM/DS
say it is, plus or minus any pending changes. Whether that "curved"
route gets reflected in OSM may depend on whether it is still
discernable as a path or whatever. But the "straight line" must not be
denoted as a public right of way, as that is simply not true. 

IIRC the Definitive Map may be encumbered with OS licensing but the
Definitive Statement is fully controlled by the appropriate council.

By the way, are you familiar with this Gov't publication on the subject?


https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/414670/definitive-map-guide.pdf


--colin 

On 2017-02-05 14:21, Rob wrote:

> Hi, 
> I've just read Colin's reply again - more thoroughly this time!  I should have made it clear that I was thinking of paths where there's only a slight discrepancy - up to 40m say.  For example where there's no longer a stile through a hedge because everyone heads for the nearest gate.  Or because people walk in a straight line from A to be across a field instead of following the curved PROW.  In such a situation is it appropriate to not tag anything as a PROW or to mark the de facto path as a PROW?  Sorry for any repetition. 
> Rob 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> FROM: Rob 
> TO: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org 
> SENT: Sunday, February 05, 2017 1:03 PM 
> SUBJECT: Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate. 
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> I'm a relative newcomer to contributing to OSM but trying to get to grips as quickly as possible with the consensus on various topics, one of which is PROWs.  The emails below raise questions I've had for a while. 
> 
> I'm hoping for guidance as paths can include these two types: 
> 1.  Definitive PROWs (but subject to subsequent Orders - whether deviations or extinguishments) 
> 2.  De facto paths generally thought to be PROWs. 
> Most of the time the two are coincident. 
> 
> Where they're not coincident, is it the case that we should map the de facto paths? 
> In such a situation should the de facto paths be tagged as PROWs and/or given the highway authority's reference? 
> Where there's a difference should we also map the definitive PROWs in some way (even if they go through a private house - I'm not making that up)? 
> 
> I realise there's an important but separate issue of copyright if the route can be determined only from the definitive map (based on the OS map). 
> 
> Regards, 
> Rob 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> FROM: Colin Smale 
> TO: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org 
> SENT: Sunday, February 05, 2017 11:33 AM 
> SUBJECT: Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate. 
> 
> My understanding is that the definitive data held by the appropriate local authority is exactly that, definitive. There may be legitimate errors in there of course, but where a path has been willfully and legally rerouted, that is a different type of error - lack of currency, i.e. an order has been made to reroute the path but they haven't yet got round to updating the Definitive Map and the Definitive Statement. 
> 
> Any paths that no longer follow the official route (as per the DM/DS) should not be tagged as PROW and probably as access=permissive unless they go across otherwise public land. The official route is still a public right of way, it's just no longer usable as such. 
> 
> Do you have a way of feeding these discrepancies back to Somerset CC, to establish whether they are true errors, lack of currency or illegal reroutings? 
> 
> http://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/rights-of-way-law-in-england-and-wales/definitive-maps-explained.aspx 
> 
> --colin
> 
> On 2017-02-05 11:19, Dave F wrote: 
> Hi
> 
> If you're using local authority data/os open data to map paths, as a contributor current is in Somerset, please don't assume their layout corresponds with what's on the ground or is more accurate than what's mapped in OSM. These official ways are often outdated, being based on redundant features such as grubbed up fences & hedgerows. Gate & stiles occasionally get moved. These tweaks often don't make it back to the Definitive Map.
> 
> Please verify using this data doesn't make OSM less accurate.
> 
> Cheers
> DaveF
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 
> 
> -------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

-------------------------

 		 [1]

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
www.avast.com [1] 

-------------------------

 _______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 

-------------------------

 		 [1]

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
www.avast.com [1] 

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 

Links:
------
[1] https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20170205/e305b119/attachment-0001.html>