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

[Andy Townsend]

On 06/02/2017 11:18, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> On 2017-02-06 09:57, Dave F wrote:
>
>> On 05/02/2017 11:33, Colin Smale wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> We should be mapping what's on the ground, as PROW signs & stiles 
>> indicate, even if that doesn't correspond with the definitive map. 
>> They should be tagged to correspond with the signs status.
>
> Not sure I agree with this - the "on the ground" principle can be 
> taken too far. The real principle is "objective verifiability" - so 
> two independent "mappers" would come to the same conclusion. That 
> doesn't always imply that things are actually visible on site, only 
> that there is an agreed "single point of truth". In my book that 
> single point of truth would be the Definitive Map and Definitive 
> Statement, and NOT the signs.
>

To be honest, I think just applying a bit of common sense is the thing 
to do here.  I normally "map what's on the ground" but it's pretty 
common to find PRoW signs pointing in odd directions, often where some 
local scally has decided to have a play with the sign. You can usually 
figure out where it's supposed to go though, usually from signage along 
the way.  Similarly many people in a particular area can point to "the 
footpath that officially goes through someone's house" or "the footpath 
that officially goes through a sewage farm".  Usually these are just an 
error (FSVO error) on whatever map they occur on (for all the reasons 
already discussed).

Adding an source explicit source for "designation" if it's not 
on-the-ground signage does make sense to me though, if only to avoid the 
problems that we had with people "helpfully" filling in names from OS 
Locator (even when a split-second of thought would have suggested that 
those names might not be corrent due to obvious spelling errors etc.).

Of course, not all "obviously wrong" paths are wrong, though - like 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.02259/-1.45416 which is a 
footpath through a (former) pub.

Cheers,

Andy



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20170206/64ba0cde/attachment.html>