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

Wed Jan 6 15:55:26 UTC 2021

Hi,

In general it seems a good summary Nathan and a worthwhile effort.

To add on to Jon's point. I'd also caution against the use of any negative
access tagging where this is not clear on the ground. Definitive maps
(etc.) are a positive list of rights which have been proven to exist. They
purposely don't rule out the existence of other access rights or other
types of lawfully permitted access. Just because we know that, for example,
a public footpath runs along a track, it doesn't mean we can safely tag
bicycle=no, horse=no, access= no etc. from our armchair.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021, 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/20210106/5d9105bb/attachment.htm>