[Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

Mark Lee mark.lee at droveend.com
Tue Dec 8 14:39:05 UTC 2020


That's very interesting Jerry, thanks. I thought the byway's reference was
a bit odd actually as in it's the same as the byway that it intersects. In
my experience, usually the paths I've looked at are a single line ie. a
single beginning and end so maybe it has been "tacked on" to an existing
path rather than given a new reference.

Mark


On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 14:22 SK53, <sk53.osm at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ed71287e/attachment.htm>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list