[Talk-GB] Portraying and labelling Countryside Access Map alignments and paths actually walked

[SK53]

W

On 29 September 2017 at 14:35, Bob Hawkins <bobhawkins at waitrose.com> wrote:

> I should be interested to learn the general consensus regarding definitive
> alignments of Public Rights of Way and paths actually walked, and whether
> contributors have similar predicaments to mine.  I have two cases in
> Shiplake, Oxfordshire:
> 1. Shiplake FP 37  Footpath #528052488
> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/528052488> Changeset #52405541
> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52405541>
> I had labelled the straight line path to the kissing gate before the
> railway as Shiplake FP 37, originally.  Since devoting my time to adding
> PRoW information in the Oxfordshire Chilterns and using Oxfordshire County
> Council’s Countryside Access Map, I have become aware of official path
> alignments.  I pondered long and hard over this issue.  I decided, finally,
> that it would be incorrect to label the straight line to the kissing gate
> before the railway as footpath 37, although this is the path used for a
> long time, and it makes no sense to walk the official alignment in an open,
> grassed field.  There has been nothing official to change its alignment, as
> far as I am aware, however.  I felt the best solution was to map footpath
> 37 as the Countryside Access Map shows, label it as such, and re-label the
> straight line as foot=yes, highway=footway alone.  Should anything arise to
> prevent that, it can be removed instantly without affecting anything else.
> 2. Shiplake FP 10  Footpath #23639524
> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23639524> Changeset #52419186
> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52419186>
> The opposite applies to footpath 10: walkers in this case take the
> right-angled fence line from the stile (at the junction with Shiplake FP
> 11) towards Plough Lane while the Countryside Access Map shows footpath 10
> crossing the field diagonally from a point before the stile.  This has the
> effect of labelling the short section immediately before the stile wrongly
> as footpath 10 when it should be footpath 11.  I plan to visit the site and
> alter OSM with the same attitude as for footpath 37.
> With regards
> Bob Hawkins
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> <#m_3726063421128278465_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170929/f113c680/attachment-0001.html>