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

Paul Berry pmberry2007 at gmail.com
Fri May 26 19:29:53 UTC 2023 

How about an access=blocked or access=no in these instances too?

Case in point: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/751680112/history (which I
reported as blocked over a year ago - must revisit it and update if the way
is clear again).

Regards,
*Paul*

On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 20:05, Timothy Noname <hervbeof at gmail.com> wrote:

> If it looks permanent and used by others then map the diversion. You do
> have the right to take reasonable diversions if the path is blocked. Also
> delete footpaths that aren't usable even if they are on the definitive map.
> I've done a lot of footpaths along the coast and A lot of footpaths don't
> exactly correspond to what's on the definitive map.
>
> On Fri, 26 May 2023, 16:43 Chris Smith, <chris4boundary at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20230526/241c327b/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list