[Talk-GB] Scottish paths map

[Mark Goodge]

On 13/09/2021 16:27, Martin Wynne wrote:

> But if they want to map such details as "include useful details such as 
> a path’s surfacing, condition, waymarking and any obstacles" they can do 
> that on OSM, no special tool or membership is needed. And why restrict 
> it to Scotland?
Scotland is different to England in several respects. And I don't just 
mean the midges :-)

Specifically, in this context, Scotland's concept of Public Rights of 
Way is different to that in England and Wales. We have it fairly easy, 
south of the border, as we can map access rights with pretty good 
accuracy from a combination of the definitive PRoW records (which are 
open data) and on-the-ground observation of waymarks, etc. And where 
there's no on-the-ground indicator of permissive access or a definitive 
record of public access, we can reliably map a path or track as private. 
There may be some cases where we incorrectly map a path as private when 
it does actually have public access, but by and large we won't cause any 
problems by assuming the default where we're unsure.

In Scotland, though, the "right to roam" means that access in open 
countryside is always permitted except where it specifically isn't 
permitted (which is the reverse to most of England). So, in Scotland, it 
would technically be correct to map any path or track in open 
countryside as permitted access, unless you know there's a reason why 
access isn't permitted.

However, from the perspective of the Ramblers Association, they don't 
just want to assume the default in Scotland. If they include a path on 
their maps, then a lot of their members will be using it. So they want 
to be more sure than just assuming the default, as they don't want to 
inadvertently send ramblers along a path that looks like it's open 
access, but in reality isn't. Which is why they've established a project 
which doesn't just map paths, but also audits and verifies the mapping, 
and, if necessary, contacts landowners to check the status of paths 
where access rights may be ambiguous.

That's something that it's unlikely the OSM community would have either 
the time or inclination to do en masse. And, as Edward says in his 
reply, some of the data they need for this project is data that doesn't 
really belong in OSM anyway. So it does need to be a separate project.

I hope, though, that they data they collect which is useful for OSM will 
be available for OSM mappers in future. The website does say that they 
intend to make their data downloadable for free, but, of course, "free" 
doesn't mean "usable" if it's not subject to an open licence.

Mark