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

[nathan case]

Thanks for your input Robert, the approach taken for routes not following the definitive line makes sense - though does this lead to two paths being rendered? Or does highway=no prevent this? I will also add the fixme as Tony suggests.

> are you adding prow_ref=* tags to the Rights of Way, and if so what format are you using? 

I am. However, I can spot two issues: 

1. (my fault) I'd not been including "LA" prefix to the prow_ref number. I had assumed it stood for Lancashire but now realise it is actually for Lancaster. I will do so from now on and will try and go back and edit my edits (though there are a lot of them), unless there is another way?

2. (kinda my fault) the map data I'd been using (the Mapbox overlay) does not contain the public right of way type (i.e. the prow ref is simply given as LA |1-2| 3). Tony's email has pointed me to the county's right of way map which does contain this information (i.e 1-2-FP 3) so I will have to cross check the data as I copy it over (an annoying additional step!). 

Many thanks.



-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 12:41 PM
To: talk-gb <Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

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

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb