[Talk-GB] Rights of way vs. tracks

Edward Bainton bainton.ete at gmail.com
Sun Sep 29 20:58:03 UTC 2019


This is just fantastic, thank you.

Looking at the definitive map there is a RoW there, but it seems that the
path as shown on OSM <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/729709956> is only
roughly right: it should actually run from the road at an angle of ~240deg
rather than the ~220deg OSM shows, meeting Ermine Street a few tens of
metres further north.

The argis.com map that Peterborough City Council uses
<https://peterborough.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=1e47538c3218418e86741bf13a33a04b>
gives it as a FP called "Ailsworth 6" running from 511,025.344 298,855.444
Meters to 510,856.672 298,723.814 Meters

I don't recognise that coordinate system: is it any help for OSM?

Or is there a way to use those coordinates on the ground to follow Martin's
excellent suggestion to retread the path, exactly where there is a right to?

And generally, are we allowed to copy from the definitive map, if we copy
the RoW info only and snap that to OSM data rather than OS underlying data?

Thanks for all points made.

Edward

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 20:41, Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 29/09/2019 19:37, Edward Bainton wrote:
>
>
> Do I mark a track, with all it's passability tags, and then tag horses &
> foot=designated? That acknowledges the track, but disregards the
> documentation here
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway#England_and_Wales:_Public_bridleways>
> which says "Public bridleways should be tagged: highway
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=bridleway and
> designation <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation>
> =public_bridleway" .
>
> I've edited the relevant wiki page to make it clearer:
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway#England_and_Wales%3A_Public_bridleways
>
> If something is designated as a public bridleway add the
> "designation=public_bridleway" tag.  This is separate to the highway tag -
> that might be highway=bridleway, but as you point out could very easily be
> highway=track or highway=service.  I've also seen examples that on the
> ground really aren't substantial enough to be called highway=bridleway, but
> are legally signed as that.
>
>
> 2.
> What should I do with this footpath
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/729709956>, which appears on OSM and
> also on the OS map
> <http://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=511004&y=298838&z=115&sv=511004,298838&st=4&ar=y&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf&dn=577&ax=511004&ay=298838&lm=0>
> as a public footpath.
>
> There is absolutely no indication of it on the ground: no beaten path, no
> fingerboard, no break in the hedge at the SW end (it wouldn't need one at
> the NE end, open country).
>
> Do I delete as probably sourced from OS, or leave as it's a right of way?
>
> That's a good question.  Cambridgeshire is listed at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors , so I suspect that the
> data from the council would be licence-appropriate for OSM per
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility .
>
> If there's no physical access through a hedge I'd definitely ensure that
> there isn't a "highway=footway" running through a hedge.
>
> Given the complicated history of the ways involved, it isn't necessarily
> the case that someone "copied from OS"; they may just have seen a public
> footpath sign at one end and tagged the way there, unaware that the
> footpath crossed several roads and went through a hedge.  I've certainly
> done that in the past.  In fact:
>
>
> (For some reason the history shows me as the author of Version #1 of that
> path, but actually it long predated my edits in this area. iirc the
> history, before my edits elsewhere apparently over-wrote it, showed it as
> added several years ago)
>
> It is possible to find out what happened here.  Here's a query for the
> ways in mid-2015:
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MHs
>
> and here's one for mid-2016:
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MHt
>
> The way that was there before many, many splits is
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/210211088/history , and the edit that
> joined it to the Peterborough road was
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35688401 back at the end of 2015
> (the changeset comment helpfully says that the GPS trace used was from June
> 2015).  Obviously back then it's quite possible that there was signage and
> no hedge.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190929/98afe351/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list