[Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

SK53 sk53.osm at gmail.com
Tue Dec 8 14:20:38 UTC 2020


Yes, these are not infrequent. We may have discussed some specific examples
before, but one which comes to mind is one crossing
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/29348659#map=17/52.98971/-1.48033> the
River Derwent at Duffield. This is marked on the definitive map and the
name of a track "Save Penny Lane" suggests the purpose of the ford. Dave
Venables went & did a couple of surveys to find if anything existed but
drew a blank. Not long afterwards I had the good fortune to meet someone
concerned with the Millenium Meadow to the S of the site of the crossing
and apparently the ford was washed out long ago (if memory serves me right
late 1800s).

It's always worth looking at other sources of information. For instance,
the first OS 7th series with overprinted PRoW data appeared in the late
1960s, and these maps are now out of copyright so maybe usable (as Robert
says it may be a little more complex as the PRoW data copyrights may rest
with the Highway Authority & I dont know if local government copyright
follows the same rules as for central government). Even some 1st edition
Landranger issued in 1974 may be usable as most were photo-enlarged
versions of the 7th series. Looking at existing allowable sources (NLS maps
within editors) I find it interesting that there is no sign of a path or
track here on OS 7th series, NLS 1:10,560 and 1st edition 1:25k. It is
marked on the GSGS 1:25k which will have been compiled from older 6 inch
mapping. This suggests that the bridleway ceased to be used before around
1940. One possibility is that it has been added to the definitive map
fairly recently as part of a lost paths initiative.

Personally I do not generally map PRoWs which have no on-the-ground traces
(particularly after my experience
<http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2011/07/footpaths-in-carmarthenshire-whats-point.html>
in Carmathenshire in 2011), although I do allow a wide latitude of sources
to identify traces of PRoWs (overgrown stiles, rotting footpath signs,
etc.) when it might be useful to do so. Keeping such things invisible from
the regular user of OSM has advantages in that a non-existent path
blighting a walk is less likely. Of course if you report it as obstructed
to the HA and get a suitable reply then you have substantial personal
knowledge about the PRoW.

Jerry

PS. As an aside does anyone know if there is an article in the Charles
Close Society journal about how PRoW data were added to the 7th series?

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 12:15, ael via Talk-GB <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:36:31AM +0000, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:
> > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
> > WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to
> have
> > been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I
> can't
> > see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete
>
>  I have come across some of these where it is no longer possible to
>  walk or ride. Especially when they cross rivers where there was
>  presumably once a ford. In at least one case that I surveyed, there
>  were large trees blocking access on the river bank, and absolutely
>  no sign of a ford in the river itself. Crossing there looked potentially
>  dangerous. These had been added by armchair mappers from a definitive
>  map.
>
>  OSM should not direct users onto useless and perhaps dangerous ways.
>  As I recall, in that case I removed the section crossing the river
>  and added a note.
>
>  ael
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201208/ddc2c816/attachment.htm>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list