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

Wed Jan 6 15:47:50 UTC 2021

> new editors often seem to misunderstand how access tags work.
That'll be because iD gives us a lot of boxes to fill, and some are
pre-filled even, I believe! Not sure I don't still do some of that...

I agree with Jon, and would even suggest the guidance references
specifically that iD can be a bit of a false friend on ways.

Overall, lovely prose, Nathan.

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 at 15:41, Jon Pennycook <jon.pennycook at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210106/943ec34d/attachment-0001.htm>