[Talk-GB] PRoW changes
davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com
Thu Jun 1 14:31:10 UTC 2017
1. & 4.DMMOs, of course, have a process. OSM should only be interested
in them once they been confirmed.
2. & 5. I'd be happy with them on paper. Their accuracy isn't great to
start with & every iteration looses detail. Amending the route of paths
is definitely not an armchair exercise. (Which is why I'm miffed an
experienced mapper close to me is amending on site surveyed paths to
align with DMs)
On 31/05/2017 12:30, Adam Snape wrote:
> Hi again,
> Very much appreciate the effort being made on improving our coverage
> of Rights of Way. It is a worthwhile area for OSMUK to look at.
> Here are some further thoughts:
> 1., Dave refers to copies of Definitive Map Modification Orders
> (DMMOs) on council websites. They are obliged to publish a register of
> DMMO applications on their websites:
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2461/regulation/2/made Whilst
> these are a great source of information their use is limited for OSM
> purposes because an application to change a map is just that, an
> application. It may or may not be successful (see also point 4).
> 2. The Orders are paper based (usually scanned for uploading), not GIS
> files which could be imported straight into OSM.
> 3. Many, many counties have yet to release ROW information under the
> OSM-compatible Open Government Licence (thank you Robert for
> clarifying this for me). Very few have released the accompanying
> Definitive Statements. I suggest that acquiring nationwide
> availability of at least the Definitive Maps (and preferably the
> statements where they exist in a digital form) is a much more urgent
> priority than the relatively small proportion of paths that have been
> subject to recent changes for which we do not yet have updated shape
> 4. If we do end up receiving copies of Orders, like the Ramblers,
> PNFS, CTC, BHS et al it is important that whoever deals with it
> should understand the process and that we should not be altering our
> mapping for everything we receive. For example, just making the DMMO
> does not change the definitive map. There is a period for objections
> to be received in response to the Order and possible referral to the
> Secretary of State. The final stage is for an order to be confirmed.
> It is ony this final stage which actually changes the definitive line
> or status of the path. There may be many years (not uncommonly a
> decade or more) between the DMMO application, the making of the Order,
> and its confirmation.
> 5. Finally, I'd be wary of 'armchair mapping' recent changes without a
> ground survey. The advantage of being up to date ceases to be a
> benefit when changes have not yet been effected on the ground.
> Hope that helps.
> Kind regards,
> On 30 May 2017 at 14:13, Adam Snape <adam.c.snape at gmail.com
> <mailto:adam.c.snape at gmail.com>> wrote:
> One thing that springs to mind is that these organisations receive
> orders as they are statutory consultees who may wish to object to
> the order. It isn't just to keep these organisations up to date. I
> suspect a request by osm to be notified of changes just to keep
> might get the response that orders are already available to the
> It seems what we're really asking for is an equivalent of
> councils' obligation to send Ordnance Survey notification of
> confirmed changes rather than their obligation to notify statutory
> consultees throughout the DMMO process.
> On 29 May 2017 12:04 p.m., "Brian Prangle" <bprangle at gmail.com
> <mailto:bprangle at gmail.com>> wrote:
> There's been a suggestion that OSMUK lobbiesfor the statutory
> right to receive copies of the legal orders which change
> Public Rights of Way as it can be slow for any official
> changes to make their way onto the Definitive Map and then be
> picked up by mappers. There is already legislation that allows
> various organisations the right to receive copies of the legal
> orders that effect changes to Public Rights of Way. The list
> is contained in Schedule 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside
> (Definitive Maps and Statements) Regulations 1993:
> These are:
> Auto-Cycle Union
> British Horse Society
> Byways and Bridleways Trust, Open Spaces Society
> Ramblers Association
> British Driving Society
> Cyclists Touring Club
> Peak and Northern Footpaths Society
> Chiltern Society
> Welsh Trail Riders' Association
> The Board has discussed this and agreed we should do it. I've
> volunteered to lead this activity. We think that we would
> need to convince the relevant Secretary of State that it was a
> good idea, and get them to amend/re-issue the Statutory
> Instrument linked above that includes the list. From the
> introductory text, it looks like it's jointly the Secretaries
> of State for the Environment and Wales.
> My thinking on how we should approach this is first to contact
> each of the organisations who are already on the list and ask
> 1. Were they added at the time the legislation was passed or
> 2. If subsequently, do they know the procedure?
> 3. How is the data provided to them?
> 4. What licence terms does it have?
> 5. If it's open data would they be willing to share it with
> us until we get on the list?
> If anybody has any knowledge or experience of this legislation
> or any contacts at these organisations or any other ideas on
> how to approach this campaign we'd love to know either here or
> on the OSMUK Loomio
> discussion site.
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB