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

[nathan case]

Martin,

This is a good question - and I don't know the legality of it.

This is, of course, very different to Joe Bloggs choosing a new route. If the local highway authority has added new way markers along a different route, that suggests to me that they have amended the PRoW but perhaps have not (yet) amended the definitive statement/map. In which case, the new way marked route should be mapped.

I'd be interested to hear other's views on this too.

Cheers.

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Wynne <martin at 85a.uk> 
Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 4:01 PM
To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way mapping guidance for Wiki

On 06/01/2021 15:21, nathan case wrote:

> On-the-ground route differs from official route

Hi Nathan,

You haven't said anything about the presence of waymarking, usually added by the local Highway Authority. Quite often in this area the waymarked path, with those round plastic "Public Footpath" markers on stiles and gateposts, differs from the definitive map.

In one case locally the line of a definitive public footpath is clearly visible between two hedgerows - but is completely overgrown and impassable. The actual path in use runs about 50 yards away through open farmland, complete with Highway Authority waymarkers labelled "Public Footpath".

It is easy to map both, but which one gets the public_footpath designation?

In other cases footpaths which are not on the definitive map have also been waymarked by the Highway Authority with the same "Public Footpath" 
markers. Does this cause them to fall within the scope of the public_footpath designation? Or is it reserved for the strict letter of the law from the definitive map?

Martin.

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