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

Fri May 26 15:33:51 UTC 2023

Can I raise a slightly different aspect of this?
I've come across quite a few public footpaths marked on OS maps and
sometimes also on OSM, which are not walkable in practice due to fences or
other obstructions.
Should these be shown on OSM?

In some cases a perfectly usable alternative along a farm track is
available albeit not a PRoW.

When I've tried reporting these to local councils they say they take a
pragmatic approach to what are in effect unauthorised diversions - or in
some cases just obstructions!

Chris Smith

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Tom Crocker <tomcrockermail at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2023, 12:45
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Non-definitive public footpaths/bridleways
To: SK53 <sk53.osm at gmail.com>
Cc: <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>

Thanks for the replies. If we do go with that I think I'd add a
prow_definitive=no or similar tag to clarify the situation. For what it's
worth, OS maps show most of these as 'other routes with public access'
(green dots widely spaced). That said, I'm not a fan of following OS, some
routes are not indicated (e.g. Pullan Lane) and Cunliffe Lane is shown as a
public footpath on 1:25k despite being a bridleway.

Nathan, I'm also not a lawyer but think the guidance note was referring to
whether the definitive map or definitive statement takes precedence when in
conflict. That said, I understand that public rights can and do reside in
ways that aren't on the definitive map, but are they then designated? Also
as Jerry mentioned there is a deadline* for adding rights of way to the
definitive maps after which such rights would be extinguished [1,2]. There
seems little prospect of the council meeting any deadline given the
progress over the past 20 years and current firefighting situation. So I do
think there's reason for having some way of distinguishing them.

Jerry, an interesting read as ever, thanks for that. Also, I hadn't
realised Bradford and other cities might have been exempt, it sounded like
a unilateral decision.

Cheers

Tom

1.
https://www.ramblers.org.uk/get-involved/campaign-with-us/dont-lose-your-way-2026.aspx
2.
https://www.cla.org.uk/news/rights-of-way-deadline-a-success-for-cla-lobbying/

* 1/1/2031, which is notional in the sense that it has previously been
extended due to the number of rights of way that would be lost, but such
generosity may not be shown again.

On Wed, 24 May 2023, 14:53 SK53, <sk53.osm at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230526/a8068a66/attachment-0001.htm>