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

[SK53]

I think Nathan is right here:

OSM works iteratively with the data to hand,
and signed public rights of way not mapped with designation tags is only a
source of confusion.

I presume that as Bradford, like many cities, was exempt from the original
drawing up of definitive maps that there is a backlog of applications for
definitive status.

I know Nottingham did a lot around 2009 when Istarted mapping on OSM,
but a few which had a notice saying they planned
to apply for a designation did not make it in the end. Part of that was due
to
the expensive hoo-hah
<http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2013/10/openstreetmap-at-public-inquiry.html>
over the path through the Park Estate: I suspect as a
consequence the Park Estate were allowed to get away with putting gates on
two other paths (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/16894473 and
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/42344022).

Other paths <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/22789122> which the council
said it was going to notify also fell by the wayside, but
I think because these are already owned by the council, and are effectively
adopted highways.

The Nottingham Street Register map also has a few "claimed rights of way"
marked. These seem a slightly odd
mix, but do suggest that some things were lower priority. Some are things
I'd assumed have always been adopted
public highways (e.g., part <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12359267> of
the old, but still signed NCN-6), others have a much less clear status
(the Park
Tunnel <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/16577180>, for one).

Given that a deadline has re-appeared for PRoW notification, we, and the
council, may need to revisit the situation then.

Regards,

Jerry

Jerry

On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 09:40, Nathan Case <nathancase at outlook.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> 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/20230524/060498b7/attachment.htm>