[Talk-GB] Non-definitive public footpaths/bridleways

[Nathan Case]

Hi Tom,

My "not a lawyer" thoughts are: apply the duck test [1]. If it is signed 
as a public footpath, is open to the public as a public footpath, and is 
treated by the council as a public footpath then tag it as a public 
footpath.

My reading of S2.1 [2] may be wrong, but it says that the definitive map 
and statements serve as "conclusive evidence" that a way is a PRoW. That 
means if it a route is in either of those, then it is absolutely a PRoW. 
It doesn't mean, however, that if it's not in either of those that it 
isn't a PRoW. It just means the conclusive evidence isn't there.

Additionally, the Rambler's society guidance [3] says:

"Some rights of way are not yet shown on definitive maps. These can 
quite properly be used, and an application may be made to surveying 
authorities for them to be added to the map."

So if it's signed and in the local authority data, as such, I would just 
tag as designation=public_footpath.

Hope that helps,

Nathan


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

[2] 
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rights-of-way-advice-note-5-precedence/rights-of-way-section-advice-note-no-5-definitive-map-and-definitive-statement-precedence

[3] 
https://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/paths-in-england-and-wales/rights-of-way-law.aspx



On 23/05/2023 22:09, Tom Crocker wrote:
> Hi OSMers
>
> I don't know if this is just a local oddity, but Bradford has a number 
> of signed and mapped rights of way (for want of a better term) that 
> are 'non-definitive', i.e. not recorded in the definitive map. More 
> detail below but the overall question is how their status should be 
> tagged, if at all.
>
> On the ground they appear to be public rights of way with explicit 
> modern council signage (e.g. [1,2]. They turn up in the council's 
> online map* and their exports for rights of way [3]. However within 
> this they are tagged as LEG_STAT=non-definitive. Following a couple of 
> messages with the council, it turns out several areas were never 
> covered by the map but some record was kept "of routes within those 
> areas that it acknowledged as being public and gives them some level 
> of protection". They claim to have started the process of adding the 
> routes but it is unclear how much progress has been made and there 
> doesn't seem to be much prospect of completion for many years if ever.
>
> Examples include Cunliffe Lane (non-definitive public bridleway) [1,4] 
> and Pullan Lane (non-definitive public footpath) [2,5] in and around 
> Esholt.
>
> My current thought is that designation=non-definitive_public_footpath 
> might be best overall. An obvious disadvantage being the mix of 
> hyphens and underscores.
>
> I think it's worth tagging specifically given the signage and claim of 
> some protection. I've considered a lifecycle tag, but I don't think 
> there's enough prospect of completion for e.g. 
> proposed:designation=public_footpath. I think subtagging (e.g. 
> public_footpath=non-definitive) is probably troll tagging as it's 
> assumed definitive. That said, the council signage make the 
> on-the-ground situation appear to be designation=public_footpath.
>
> Are there similar situations elsewhere and how are they mapped? Any 
> advice on better or worse ways of handling this?
>
> Many thanks
>
> Tom Crocker
>
> 1. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=132266569482491
> 2. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=156084223660817
> 3. 
> https://spatialdata-cbmdc.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/CBMDC::bradford-public-paths-2/explore
> 4. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/49055538
> 5. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/49055529
>
> * The council's online map also mentions that the former County 
> Borough of Bradford didn't adopt Part IV of the Countryside Rights of 
> Way Act and so didn't prepare a map. The paths are referred to as 
> 'Bradford Public Paths' here.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb