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

Fri May 26 20:00:28 UTC 2023

> Also delete footpaths that aren't usable even if they are on the definitive map.

My approach is to tag as disused:highway=*. That way the route of the PRoW is mapped, won’t be added again by others, but also won’t be used for routing or be displayed on most (presumably all) renderers. I know others use highway=no or just omit the highway=* tag completely.

Coastal paths do tend to deviate quite often from their designated route – presumably due to coastal erosion.

Nathan

From: Timothy Noname <hervbeof at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2023 8:01 PM
Cc: Talk GB <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: Non-definitive public footpaths/bridleways

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:sk53.osm at gmail.com>>
Cc: <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org<mailto: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/20230526/9f4a0c6d/attachment-0001.htm>