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

[nathan case]

Interesting discussion regarding signed, diverted routes.

I've added the following text, based on what is already on the Access provisions Wiki page, which says:


"'Unsure about a Public Right of Way?
After considering the images below, if it is unclear whether a path is a Right of Way, then please tag it as suspected:designation<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:suspected:designation&action=edit&redlink=1>=<RoW type> or suspected:designation<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:suspected:designation&action=edit&redlink=1>=row with an appropriate note tag."

Do we think that could also be applied to a signed diverted route, not shown in the definite map? If so, would the following work?

On-the-ground route differs from official route
...

Where PRoW signage exists on the diversion

In some cases, you may find that official, local authority installed, PRoW signage diverts the path away from the route outlined in the definitive map/statement.

Note: signage can be confusing! Official-looking signs may not be actual PRoW signage (see here for examples https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_Rights_of_Way).

In this case, the local authority may have altered the route of the path through a Public Path Order but this has not yet been updated on the definitive map/statement. However, it may also be that the landowner has moved the signs for their own reasons.

As such, you should verify the route with your local authority. If in doubt, map the route you took but, as above, treat it like a diversion. Only add the PRoW tags to the official PRoW route as defined in the definitive map/statement. You could also tag the diverted route as [suspected:designation=<RoW type>].


From: Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 9:44 AM
To: Chris Hodges <chris at c-hodges.co.uk>; talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way mapping guidance for Wiki

"goes", sorry. I don't know how that happened!

Nick


________________________________
From: Nick Whitelegg <nick.whitelegg at solent.ac.uk<mailto:nick.whitelegg at solent.ac.uk>>
Sent: 07 January 2021 09:42
To: Chris Hodges <chris at c-hodges.co.uk<mailto:chris at c-hodges.co.uk>>; talk-gb at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb at openstreetmap.org> <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way mapping guidance for Wiki


I was referring to official Public Footpath or Public Bridleway signs of the style used by whatever council it is, rather than, say yellow arrows with no council identifier on, or vague "Footpath" or "Path signs".

I take Robert's point, but we do need some way of giving these 'de-facto' routes which diverge from the definitive map route some sort of prominence (over random unmarked paths or even permissive paths) to allow people to plan walks and see where the path they are actually likely to take goe

Nick


________________________________
From: Chris Hodges <chris at c-hodges.co.uk<mailto:chris at c-hodges.co.uk>>
Sent: 07 January 2021 09:26
To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb at openstreetmap.org> <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way mapping guidance for Wiki

If that means signed by the council as "public footpath" (or
byway/bridleway) rather than signed by the council as "Cotswold way" (to
use a local example, some small sections of which are permissive), then
it's a sensible approach. I've come across council signs which aren't as
straightforward though: "footpath to..." - yes but is it a
PROW?

On 07/01/2021 09:04, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB wrote:
>
> My own personal view is that the 'on the ground route' is what counts,
> if it has been officially signed by the council. This means that it's
> the de-facto route, the one the council is recommending you use, and
> the one which is is used practically.
>
> If people want to access the Definitive Map route (or at least the
> digitised version of it), they can always view that as an overlay on
> top of the on-the-ground truth. Otherwise the OSM database just gets
> messy, is there any need for us to duplicate the Definitive Map data?
>
> Nick
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Edward Bainton <bainton.ete at gmail.com<mailto:bainton.ete at gmail.com>>
> *Sent:* 07 January 2021 08:33
> *To:* Dave F <davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com<mailto:davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com>>
> *Cc:* Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org> <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way mapping guidance for Wiki
> I do wonder whether we need to have two keys: one for legal and one
> for physical.
>
> This tension keeps surfacing. It seems to me we're trying to square a
> circle, in that there are two wholly different aspects of access: may
> and can. Both are important, and if access keys can reflect only one
> of the two (even supposing we can agree which one that is!), absurd
> cases are bound to crop up.
>
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2021, 01:56 Dave F via Talk-GB,
> <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>
>     You misunderstood the meaning of the access key which represents the
>     *legal* right, not the physical (in)ability.
>
>     https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
>
>     DaveF
>
>     On 06/01/2021 16:24, Martin Wynne wrote:
>     > On 06/01/2021 16:07, nathan case wrote:
>     >
>     >> You should not assume that access is or is not permitted by other
>     >> transport modes. It may not even be possible to determine this
>     from a
>     >> ground survey.
>     >
>     > The presence of stiles or kissing gates on a footpath pretty well
>     > rules out any practical use by bicycles or horses.
>     >
>     > Does this mean bicycle=no, horse=no? If not, how else to
>     indicate that
>     > bicycles and horses are physically blocked? Even if permitted in
>     theory?
>     >
>     > Martin.
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Talk-GB mailing list
>     > Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org> <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
>     > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Talk-GB mailing list
>     Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org> <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org<mailto: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/20210107/5e70b476/attachment-0001.htm>