Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

Adam Snape
Hi all,

This is my first post to this (or indeed any) mailing list. Apologies if I've made any errors.

I agree with Colin that we should certainly not be assuming permissive status for paths which are not included on the definitive map. The DM is legally definitive in the rights that it shows but it is also explicitly not evidence about the non-existence of other rights. We can't say "the definitive path goes this way, thus the path going the other way must be permissive". In order to tag a way as permissive we ought to have some verifiable evidence that public use is by permission.

As Andy and Colin say, some common sense needs to be applied before adding information from the DM/DS into OSM. Until we come up with a  tagging system to say "this map feature exists legally but not on the ground", adding obvious errors, paths which have subsequently been built across, or stiles/gates which now exist only on the DS lessens the usability of the map for people actually wanting to use the paths.

I'm in Lancashire which hasn't explicitly released the DS/DM information under a suitable license (though it does appear on rowmaps). If I was somewhere which had released this information, it would definitely be useful for checking osm for errors and for adding the definitive line where the current path takes a different course. However, I'd still avoid making small adjustments to ways following actual GPS traces (eg through fields) just to get them to exactly follow the council's shape-files. The scope for error in the several generations of copying (Parish return>Draft Map(s)>Revision(s)>computerisation) and the limitation of the original DM scale means that we are better off with our own measurements of the path.

Adam

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

Philip Barnes
Hi Adam, welcome to the list.

On Tue Feb 7 13:26:00 2017 GMT, Adam Snape wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> This is my first post to this (or indeed any) mailing list. Apologies if
> I've made any errors.
>
> I agree with Colin that we should certainly not be assuming permissive
> status for paths which are not included on the definitive map. The DM is
> legally definitive in the rights that it shows but it is also explicitly
> not evidence about the non-existence of other rights. We can't say "the
> definitive path goes this way, thus the path going the other way must be
> permissive". In order to tag a way as permissive we ought to have some
> verifiable evidence that public use is by permission.

I disagree with you here, the walkable line  should be mapped as the right of way whether it follows the definitive line or not. It absolutely should not be mapped as permissive, the landowner is not giving permission. If the definitive line is obstructed you have an absolute right to go around it.

The walked line and the definitive line are often different, I have heard 50m as being a reasonable guide from the LA.
>
> As Andy and Colin say, some common sense needs to be applied before adding
> information from the DM/DS into OSM. Until we come up with a  tagging
> system to say "this map feature exists legally but not on the ground",
> adding obvious errors, paths which have subsequently been built across, or
> stiles/gates which now exist only on the DS lessens the usability of the
> map for people actually wanting to use the paths.

We should map what is there, stiles is where we are making a better map.

Thete is some deregulation of footpath diversions on the way, particularly where the walked line and definitive line differ and providing it is agreed by all parties, then a map modification order will be able to be made without expensive lawers getting involved. I am hoping that will improve the situation.

And when you are out walking do take your secateurs.

Phil (trigpoint)
--
Sent from my Jolla
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

Colin Smale

On 2017-02-07 15:01, Philip Barnes wrote:

Hi Adam, welcome to the list.

If the definitive line is obstructed you have an absolute right to go around it.

Are you sure about this? I would expect that you only have a right to report the obstruction to the LA or apply to the courts. Technically, you might not even have the rights to remove the obstruction as it consists of private property. If I am wrong here, I would appreciate a link...
 
--colin
 

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

Philip Barnes
On Tue Feb 7 15:04:22 2017 GMT, Colin Smale wrote:

> On 2017-02-07 15:01, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
> > Hi Adam, welcome to the list.
> >
> > If the definitive line is obstructed you have an absolute right to go around it.
>
> Are you sure about this? I would expect that you only have a right to
> report the obstruction to the LA or apply to the courts. Technically,
> you might not even have the rights to remove the obstruction as it
> consists of private property. If I am wrong here, I would appreciate a
> link...

http://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/rights-of-way-law-in-england-and-wales/basics-of-rights-of-way-law.aspx

Section 22 deals with removing an obstruction.

Thats the reason you take your secateurs on every walk and don't go home for them :)

Phil

--
Sent from my Jolla
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb