[Talk-GB] Resurrecting the 'find the missing paths for 2026' project

[Nick Whitelegg]

The main aim, though, of this project is to investigate, using the historical maps, historical rights of way for the point of view of gathering evidence to re-open them before 2026.

A possible side-effect of this is to locate new paths to map for OSM. Such paths would not, of course, be tagged with a designation (unless they are legally re-opened) but if there is evidence of use, they could certainly be added as a highway=footway at the very least.

Nick


________________________________
From: David Woolley <forums at david-woolley.me.uk>
Sent: 01 October 2019 13:56
To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Resurrecting the 'find the missing paths for 2026' project

On 30/09/2019 18:25, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> I made a start on this about a year ago, here's a quck mock-up showing
> council data in colours and OSM paths shown in white as a 'tippex'
> effect. This allows the identification of historical 'F.P' footpaths on
> the historical maps which do not correspond either to current council
> RoWs or current OSM paths, and thus would be candidates for
> investigation to see if the path is in a usable state or there is
> evidence of use.

Such paths are not going to have finger boards with "public footpath" on
them.  In other threads, I sense quite a strong lobby for only mapping
rights of way that are so marked on the ground and ignoring any
designation that only appears in a map.

As such, you will end up with at best a permissive status recorded on
OSM.  Even that is actually likely to be subjective.

_______________________________________________
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/20191001/8de8542e/attachment.html>