[Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

As a general principle, I think we should certainly map both (a) any
physical paths on the ground and (b) the legal Definitive Line (though
not necessarily as a highway if it isn't one). These might be separate
ways if the two line differ, though they'd normally be one and the
same. It would also be useful to map (c) any required deviations from
the definitive line in order to use a Right of Way, whether or not
there's a physical path in evidence there, in order to maintain a
route-able network or ways.

Further details of the tagging I use in various cases can be found at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Tagging#Routes_not_following_the_Definitive_Line

By the way Nathan, are you adding prow_ref=* tags to the Rights of
Way, and if so what format are you using? If you're mapping Rights of
Way in Lancashire, you might be interested in my tools at
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/lancs/

Best wishes,

Robert.

On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 11:29, nathan case <nathancase at outlook.com> wrote:
> I’m using the very helpful work Mapbox tiles (from Rob Nickerson’s email on 11 Nov 2019) to map Lancashire’s public rights of way (PROW) under the council’s open data licence.
[snip]
> In cases where the mapped route deviates substantially from the PROW – should I keep the mapped route or edit to fit the PROW?
>
> The mapped route could be an error (even with GPS trails) as the original mapper may have taken the incorrect route. Quite often this is the original mapper being polite and walking around the edge of a farmer’s field even when the PROW is straight through the field. Legally, the route is through the field and not around it. Or it could be that the way is not well signposted and the mapper has had to guess the way (a big issue across Lancashire’s moorlands/heathlands for the not so well trodden paths).
>
> Equally, the mapped route could represent the actual “on the ground” route i.e. the route shown by PROW vector may be impassable. It’s also not guaranteed that the vector files are correct (as they’re only copies from the definitive map).
>
> Where the PROW goes through a building/object – should I map the route as defined in the PROW, or re-route the PROW around the object?
>
> Unless there is an error in the PROW vectors, the building shouldn’t be built on the PROW – though it does seem to happen a lot, especially with farm buildings. Obviously the path can no longer run through the building – despite it’s legal status. When arm chair mapping (as is only practical with such a large data set) should we instead show the best alternative route? Or go with the legal route and allow people following the route on the ground to find the best route and edit in future?

-- 
Robert Whittaker