[Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way mapping guidance for Wiki

Wed Jan 6 15:39:27 UTC 2021

Hello Nathan.

One thought around access - new editors often seem to misunderstand how
access tags work.
Perhaps the page should perhaps encourage people to not put
access=no/private plus foot=yes/designated on footways - it makes no sense.
Also access=designated plus foot=yes on a track or service road which is a
Public Footpath doesn't mean what new people think it means (the foot part
doesn't restrict the access part). Finally, avoid *=no if that mode of
transport would be forbidden anyway for the particular highway type (I
recently saw motor_vehicle=no on a new footway).

Jon

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021, 15:23 nathan case, <nathancase at outlook.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I recently did some updating to the UK Wiki PRoW page (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom)
> and thought it might be useful to include (either on that page or a
> separate one) some guidance for mapping PRoWs.
>
>
>
> Since I’ve started mapping PRoWs I’ve had a bunch of questions and I know
> there have been several threads on this list about this topic - so I
> thought it’d be good to collate that information. I’ve made a first attempt
> at doing so. Before creating publishing this on the Wiki – I wanted to run
> by this list for input/suggestions (not sure if this is the best way – or
> if I should just create the Wiki page and have a discussion there?).
>
>
>
> Many thanks,
>
>
>
> Nathan
>
>
>
> ----------
>
>
>
> Suggested text:
>
>
>
> *Tips for mapping PRoWs*
>
> The best way to map a PRoW is undoubtedly to undertake a ground survey of
> a route and upload a GPS trace. By doing so, you can verify the route
> exists (e.g. checking for appropriate signage), check its condition (and
> add appropriate [surface] or [trail_visibility] tags to the route), and add
> other items such as styles, bridges, and gates.
>
>
>
> When mapping PRoWs, it is important to note that any route listed in a
> local authority’s definitive statement, or shown on its definitive map, is
> by law a highway with guaranteed legal access rights for specified users
> depending on its status. A highway, therefore, exists on a PRoW regardless
> of whether it can be seen on the ground or whether it is passable.
>
>
>
> *PRoW runs along the same route as another highway*
>
> In OSM, you should always map a highway by its highest classification. For
> example, if a public footpath shares its route with a service road you
> should map the service road and add the appropriate designation tags to
> that road. Do not draw both a footway and a service road. If the two
> highways diverge, even for a relatively short distance, you should then map
> them separately.
>
>
>
> *Impassable or blocked PRoWs*
>
> Some mappers may choose not to map paths that are impassable or for which
> there is no evidence of. Of course, this is fine. Equally, if you would
> still like to map this route you can.
>
>
>
> By law, if a PRoW is blocked, you are permitted to take a reasonable
> diversion around the blockage. It is recommended therefore that you map the
> route with this diversion included. However, you should split the way and
> omit the associated PRoW tags from this diverted part of the route.
> Additionally, you should add notes or other suitable tags to the
> route/blockage to indicate what the issue is.
>
>
>
> Remember, blockages such as overgrown hedges or swampy ground may only be
> temporary/seasonal.
>
>
>
> Especially for more permanent blockages, e.g. farm buildings or new
> fences, or old routes that likely haven’t been removed from the map in
> error (e.g. running through numerous houses on an new-ish estate with no
> on-the-ground evidence), you may wish to also map the section of the PRoW
> that is not passable but use a suitable tagging scheme to indicate the path
> cannot be used. There is no consensus on how to do this but options include
> [highway=no], [disused:highway=footway/ bridleway], or simply not adding
> the [highway] tag at all.
>
>
>
> It is highly recommended that you report any impassable or blocked routes
> to your local authority’s PRoW team, so that it can be investigated and
> hopefully resolved!
>
>
>
> Note: local authorities can issue temporary closures of PRoWs for safety
> reasons. In such cases, you may wish to simply not map this route until the
> closure is removed. If the route is already on OSM, you can add temporary
> tags to indicate its closure.
>
>
>
> *On-the-ground route differs from official route*
>
> Firstly, it is important to remember that digitalised versions of
> definitive maps, e.g. those on a local authority’s website or from PRoW
> data layers (see “Adding new PRoWs from permitted sources”), are not legal
> records and may contain inaccuracies or be outdated. Only the definitive
> statement and map are legally enforceable.
>
>
>
> If you find that the “on-the-ground” route of a PRoW is different to that
> listed in the definitive statement or definitive map, there are two main
> options available. If the “on-the-ground” route and the official PRoW route
> are close enough (though this is subjective), you may choose to map either
> route. If the two routes vary substantially, you may map both routes. But
> you must only add the PRoW tags to the official PRoW route. The
> “on-the-ground” route would, by default, be a permissive path. It would
> also be beneficial to note this discrepancy on both ways.
>
>
>
> *Adding new PRoWs from permitted sources*
>
> If your local authority has provided a dataset of their PRoWs, with an OSM
> compatible licence, then you are permitted to add these to OSM (including
> both the route and prow_ref). However, you must not use any restricted
> sources to help you add the routes to OSM – for example, you may not use
> copyrighted maps (such as OS maps) to help draw on the route in OSM.
> Additionally, you should not bulk import PRoWs as there are likely to be
> conflicts with already present highways.
>
>
>
> One possible permitted option, but only if the local authority’s data
> licence allows, is to use a PRoW data layer (e.g.
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2019-November/023785.html)
> in OSM to draw the PRoW route. You may need to use a permitted secondary
> source to add the prow_ref number. A good option for this is
> https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/ which can also be used for
> identifying which paths are missing from OSM, or have other issues, in your
> local area.
>
>
>
> Such “armchair” mapping is discouraged by some in the community, since you
> cannot add useful “on-the-ground” detail. Also, since you will be copying
> from digitised sources, the accuracy cannot be guaranteed. But, so long as
> the data licence is permittable, you are perfectly allowed to do so.
> Indeed, OSM is an iterative effort. Your armchair mapped route may allow
> other users, who would not have known the path existed before, to explore
> and improve the route in the future.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210106/fcd24559/attachment.htm>