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

[Tony OSM]

Hi Nathan

I've done some work on Chorley PROW's recently. Populated using the 
style Chorley FP 1; Lancaster area uses the numbering convention in 
MapThePaths eg 1-1 23. Fortunately I know the area well having lived in 
the vicinity for 30 years so I can do armchair mapping with some knowledge.

Robert Whittaker has responded to you and provided the link to 
progress/lancs which I have been using - If find it very useful, 
especially as it checks against format style of Chorley FP 1.

When I have found  PROW which can't be walked I am making a note, I have 
started a conversation with the PROW team at Lancs CC about Chorley FP 1 
and Chorley FP 9 which can't be walked because they have build a road 
and bridge over them. On that particular section I have not placed the 
PROW because the path does not exist and I feel that a Definitive Map 
change is required. However Lancs CC seem to be very reactive about map 
changes. I'm think that FIXME's could be useful in the case where path 
can't be mapped to the actual Definitive Line

I also find the 
https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/ 
to be useful to assist on defining the PROW, it maintains the path 
reference in sight to help with reference changes particularly at parish 
boundaries or path joins.

Where it goes through a building I would divert where appropriate, add a 
FIXME and I would save the information to contact Lancs CC so that the 
Definitive Map can be checked; as we only have 6 years to get these 
things right I believe that Lancs CC should be encouraged to do the 
right thing.

Regards

Tony Shield

TonyS999


On 04/05/2020 11:27, nathan case wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> 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.
>
> Generally, any existing paths already marked on the map fit quite well 
> with the vector files of the PROWs. So if the already mapped route 
> lies near enough to the PROW line in the vector file, I leave the 
> route as is and just add the missing tags (e.g. designation and prow_ref).
>
> However;
>
>  1. 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).
>
>  2. 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?
>
> Thanks for any insights!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200504/87b537e5/attachment.htm>