[OSM-talk] Field boundaries

[Mike Harris]

Not sure I entirely agree ...

1. Many of the public rights of way drawn on OS maps - especially in upland
areas - are approximations done by someone sitting at a desk - so the GPS
work on the ground is invaluable. Even the lines on the definitive maps are
often approximations drawn by a desk worker with a ruler rather than by
someone in the field.

2. Having said that, the line in the definitive statement (and the
definitive map if not contradictory to the statement) is usually the legal
right of way (until altered by a DMMO) - even if it's nuts.

3. Wouldn't have so much faith in landowners - many of them don't really
know where the rights of way lie until there is an issue (so many problems
arise from sloppy conveyancing survey practices and people tend to believe
their solicitors (;>). The Highway Authority holds the definitive map and
statement. Both are open on request to public inspection and are
authoritative - whatever the landowner may say! (again - even if nuts!).

Mike Harris
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) 
> [mailto:ajrlists at googlemail.com] 
> Sent: 30 September 2009 09:52
> To: 'Dave F.'
> Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries
> 
> Dave F. wrote:
> >Sent: 24 September 2009 6:36 PM
> >Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
> >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Field boundaries
> >
> >Mike Harris wrote:
> >> Dave makes a good point - the most important thing for walkers in 
> >> farmed rural areas is often to know on which side of the hedge / 
> >> fence they
> >ought
> >> to be. OS 1:25k is fairly useless for this as the 
> difference between 
> >> one side of the hedge and the other is usually less than the 
> >> registration
> >error
> >> between the OS overlays for public rights of way and the base map! 
> >> Larger scale OS does not afaik show public rights of way 
> as such - just 'paths'
> >and
> >> 'tracks'. So OSM can offer something here.
> >>
> >> I will try to record fence / hedge stubs more often - 
> especially when 
> >> I
> >note
> >> that they do not agree with OS mapping!
> >>
> >> Mike Harris
> >>
> >>
> >I've always been disappointed with the quality of the OD 
> 1:25k. These 
> >are now all digitally stored yet the printed versions look 
> like they've 
> >been drawn with swan quills.
> >
> >I've never understood why they used thicker linestyles to represent 
> >paths than the 1:50k's . It just blocks out detail underneath it.
> >
> 
> Many a time I have descended from the fells using OS 1:25k 
> and compass only to find the bearing was wrong because the 
> footpath on the OS map has been poorly drawn. And this 
> situation is unlikely to change because the OS has no 
> surveying capacity to update this aspect of their mapping and 
> it's not something that can always be reliably adjusted from 
> aerial photography.
> 
> You will generally find that the older 1:25k maps are better 
> than current day ones. Although the old maps don't have 
> public rights of way they do show many of the footpaths that 
> later became public rights of way. On the old maps they are 
> drawn more finely so its much easier to see where they were 
> originally surveyed [1]. May help in some cases work out 
> where a path goes when its not clear on the ground although 
> the best way to address that issue is by asking the 
> landowner. They normally now precisely and are probably a 
> better source of info than the local authority. 
> 
> Having said that there are still paths on the old maps that 
> appear to be drawn on a boundary rather than to one side of it.
> 
> [1] for an example see
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/images/a/a9/Portland_snip001.png
>  (bottom half of image)
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> 
>