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

Wed Jan 6 16:20:14 UTC 2021

Hi Nathan,
I agree that this would make a good quarterly project - nice write up
as well.
Regards
Nick(Tallguy)
On Wed, 2021-01-06 at 15:50 +0000, nathan case wrote:
> Thanks Jon. Agreed. I’ll add those details to the “PRoW runs along
> the same route as another highway” section. I did update
>  the main Access provisions page to include what access tags to add
> to PRoWs but they are only for isolated PRoWs (e.g. public footpaths
> that are just footpaths), adding in this extra guidance would be
> beneficial.
> Cheers.
>  
> From: Jon Pennycook <jon.pennycook at gmail.com>
> 
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 3:39 PM
> 
> To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
> 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way mapping guidance for Wiki
>  
> 
> 
> 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 
> listTalk-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/20210106/0c8af5e4/attachment.htm>