Hi,
Some advice would be appreciated.
My main interest in OSM is attempting to map public rights of way in the
countryside such as bridleways and footways. I have read advice that a
way such as a cycleway should only be mapped if someone else can verify
its existence somehow – such as physical
Most rural public footpath rights of way will be old routes that will be
marked on the out-of-copyright (over 50 year old) OS maps,
so there's no problem with using that as your prime data.
Mario
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http:
- Original Message -
From: "WessexMario"
To: "Godfrey Bartlett"
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way
>
> Most rural public footpath rights of way will be old routes that will be
> marked on the out-of-co
>So hopefully you can see where I'm going with this. I want to represent
>ways with a legitimate ?foot=yes? tag. In the absence of signposts, in
>practice the guide for UK walkers is the OS map, but if I walk a route
>which I believe follows the OS map for the purposes of a GPS trace, is
>this
Hello Godfrey,
Sorry I should have made another point:
"If it's a path which you know is a right of way via an Ordnance Survey
map, but cannot verify that on the ground, again you must use
foot=permissive even if that's not true. This is because you can't verify
the right of way status from a
>And just a quick reminder that the NPE edition map is available as on
>overlay in both JOSM and Potlatch editors
>David
Caution is needed here though. I have an NPE map of the local area which I
sometimes use to locate possible rights of way in an area with which I am
unfamiliar. In about 80%
Has there been any contact in the past with ramblers groups to help mapping
of footpaths in the countryside? We arrange mapping parties but often that
involves preaching to converted.
I just had a look on the Ramblers Association website and their forum. A
quick search shown no mention of openstre
I suggest you talk to them -
it's a good idea for both parties.
Cheers, Chris
Jason Cunningham wrote:
Has there been any contact in the past with ramblers
groups to help mapping of footpaths in the countryside? We arrange
mapping parties but often that involves preaching to converted.
I
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> Hello Godfrey,
>
> Sorry I should have made another point:
>
> "If it's a path which you know is a right of way via an Ordnance Survey
> map, but cannot verify that on the ground, again you must use
> foot=permissive even if that's not true. This is because you can't verif
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> Hello Godfrey,
>
> Sorry I should have made another point:
>
> "If it's a path which you know is a right of way via an Ordnance Survey
> map, but cannot verify that on the ground, again you must use
> foot=permissive even if that's not true. This is because you can't verif
Hi Godfrey,
>Thanks for your replies Nick.
>I must agree with you that it is pointless tracing in footpaths from NPE
>data. Over 50 years, footpaths have been closed, diverted, amalgamated
>etc and new ones established in line with the changing features of the
>countryside.
I would somewhat di
Following on from this, am I correct in assuming that the only
definitive source of mapping information about public rights of way is
the OS? It seems ludicrous that *public* rights of way are effectively
copyrighted in this manner. I suppose it's analagous to the issue with
council boundaries.
My
On 17/08/2009 13:28, Glenn Proctor wrote:
> Following on from this, am I correct in assuming that the only
> definitive source of mapping information about public rights of way is
> the OS? It seems ludicrous that *public* rights of way are effectively
> copyrighted in this manner. I suppose it's a
> but
> one can then do that on the ground.
Any many people are already mapping the footpaths (etc) on the
ground. Each weekend my wife and I try and find time to go for a
walk somewhere nearby which adds at least one public footpath to OSM
based on GPX trace. And if people do add paths using NPE
Glenn Proctor wrote:
Following on from this, am I correct in assuming that the only
definitive source of mapping information about public rights of way is
the OS? It seems ludicrous that *public* rights of way are effectively
copyrighted in this manner. I suppose it's analagous to the issue
Godfrey Bartlett wrote:
> I must agree with you that it is pointless tracing in footpaths from NPE
> data. Over 50 years, footpaths have been closed, diverted, amalgamated
> etc and new ones established in line with the changing features of the
> countryside.
I've done areas near me that were c
>Following on from this, am I correct in assuming that the only
>definitive source of mapping information about public rights of way is
>the OS? It seems ludicrous that *public* rights of way are effectively
>copyrighted in this manner. I suppose it's analagous to the issue with
>council boundaries
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> Someone probably needs to sort this out with a council. Maybe I'll get
> round to doing it with mine at some stage.
I contacted my local council with a freedom of information request -
asking if I could obtain vector information of particular rights of way
from them. Afte
>Also, the definitive map/statement is not even definitive! The
>Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 set a cut off date of 2026 for
>all rights of way to be recorded on definitive statements or be lost,
Going off the OSM subject, but: would presence on an NPE map as a black
dashed line but non
James Davis wrote:
> Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>
>
> We may be underestimating the intertwined nature of the definitive map
> /statement and OS data.
>
Here in Hampshire the council are actually quite good. The definitive
maps are all online (and clearly say OS copyright on them). In addition
th
On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 14:36 +0100, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> >Also, the definitive map/statement is not even definitive! The
> >Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 set a cut off date of 2026 for
> >all rights of way to be recorded on definitive statements or be lost,
>
> Going off the OSM subject
ubject: Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way
Sent: 20 Aug 2009 20:14
On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 14:36 +0100, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> >Also, the definitive map/statement is not even definitive! The
> >Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 set a cut off date of 2026 for
> >all rig
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 19:20 +, Luke Bosman wrote:
> The wording is "The representation on this map of any other road, track or
> path is no evidence of the existence of a right of way".
>
> Cheers,
> Luke
It depends which map you look at! ;o) I took my wording from an OS
1:25,000 First Edit
The wording I took us from a recent Explorer map.
Luke
--Original Message--
From: Andy Street
To: Luke Bosman
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way
Sent: 20 Aug 2009 20:47
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 19:20 +, Luke Bosman wrote:
> The wording is &
Hi everyone,
In recent months I've had a renewed interest in mapping my local area
and one area I've been focusing on is the variety of public rights of
way that I use. According to the wiki page
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_access_provisions#Public_Rights_of_Way),
only signs that inclu
After a rather long battle with Cambridgeshire County Council over the
release and licensing of their Public Rights of Way GIS data, the ICO
ruled in my favour again last month, and the Council have now released
the data under the Open Government Licence. This means it's suitable
for use in OSM. :-
Hi all,
I'm using the very helpful work Mapbox tiles (from Rob Nickerson's email on 11
Nov 2019) to map Lancashire's public rights of way (PROW) under the council's
open data licence.
Generally, any existing paths already marked on the map fit quite well with the
vector files of the PROWs. So
Hi,
I'm a bit cautious about using highway=no for rights of way. I understand
it where a definitive route is utterly impassible on the ground (eg. goes
through a building) but elsewhere it seems to be suggested as a bit of a
fudge to avoid having one right of way represented by two highways in OSM
On 11-May-17 00:20, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
The presence of prow_ref=*
tags to allow matching with official data is almost non-existent.)
So what's the best way to fix this?
If I click on your map, it shows me something like
Teversham FP 3
(MS: 0 | ΔL/L: —)
which is a bit cry
Congratulations Robert! The long thread of letters is... educational!
Dan
2017-05-11 0:20 GMT+01:00 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
:
> After a rather long battle with Cambridgeshire County Council over the
> release and licensing of their Public Rights of Way GIS data, the ICO
> ruled in my favour
On 11 May 2017 at 09:07, Dan S wrote:
> Congratulations Robert! The long thread of letters is... educational!
To put it mildly! Well done Robert, not only on the outcome but also
in keeping calm and civil during the protracted correspondence.
My highlight of the saga is definitely sections 37 th
Great Scott! Like wading through treacle. I admire your perseverance.
Did you ever get a reason as to why they were being so restrictive?
Empire building? 'Knowledge is power?'
After seeing the long list of other local authorities who had released
their data you'd have thought they would real
On 11 May 2017 at 08:04, John Aldridge wrote:
> On 11-May-17 00:20, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
>> The presence of prow_ref=*
>> tags to allow matching with official data is almost non-existent.)
>
> So what's the best way to fix this?
>
> If I click on your map, it shows me something like
One bit of feedback, from a first try at doing this for real: footpaths
often cross parish boundaries, and at least in this area change their
reference when they do so. But your slippy map only displays geometry
for a single parish at a time, meaning that tracking the prow_ref value
for the ful
I would be interested to add rights of way information closer to home
(Lancashire).
Dave refers to the long list of other councils that have released row
information. Is this the rowmaps website or is it somewhere on osm that I'm
missing?
The information on rowmaps is not clear. Is all of the dat
On 11 May 2017 at 20:24, John Aldridge wrote:
> One bit of feedback, from a first try at doing this for real: footpaths
> often cross parish boundaries, and at least in this area change their
> reference when they do so. But your slippy map only displays geometry for a
> single parish at a time, m
It's interesting to compare their approach with that of the capital of what
used to be one of the most closed countries: the Municipality of Tirana
(Albania) is now putting (some of) its data online voluntarily, in
co-operation with the local hackerspace.
http://opendata.tirana.al/
They haven't s
On 12 May 2017 at 12:08, Adam Snape wrote:
> I would be interested to add rights of way information closer to home
> (Lancashire).
I'm currently figuring out how best to make my tool at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ scale to be able to
include many more council areas, and be able t
Some of you have have already come across my Public Rights of Way
comparison tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ which
aims to help mappers trying to complete the mapping of Rights of Way
in their area.
I've recently added data for two additional counties: Oxfordshire and
Hampshir
As a general principle, I think we should certainly map both (a) any
physical paths on the ground and (b) the legal Definitive Line (though
not necessarily as a highway if it isn't one). These might be separate
ways if the two line differ, though they'd normally be one and the
same. It would also b
Hi Nathan
I've done some work on Chorley PROW's recently. Populated using the
style Chorley FP 1; Lancaster area uses the numbering convention in
MapThePaths eg 1-1 23. Fortunately I know the area well having lived in
the vicinity for 30 years so I can do armchair mapping with some knowledge.
M
To: talk-gb
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
As a general principle, I think we should certainly map both (a) any physical
paths on the ground and (b) the legal Definitive Line (though not necessarily
as a highway if it isn't one). These might be separate wa
On 04/05/2020 14:13, nathan case wrote:
Thanks for your input Robert, the approach taken for routes not following the
definitive line makes sense - though does this lead to two paths being
rendered? Or does highway=no prevent this? I will also add the fixme as Tony
suggests.
It depends on th
On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 14:13, nathan case wrote:
> Thanks for your input Robert, the approach taken for routes not following the
> definitive line makes sense - though does this lead to two paths being
> rendered? Or does highway=no prevent this? I will also add the fixme as Tony
> suggests.
I'
On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 20:24, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 14:13, nathan case wrote:
> > Thanks for your input Robert, the approach taken for routes not following
> > the definitive line makes sense - though does this lead to two paths being
> > rendered? Or does
On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 11:08:16PM +0100, Adam Snape wrote:
> Most data consumers won't be expecting this highly country-specific
> tagging of highway=no
Why do you consider "highway=no" country-specific? Taginfo suggests
it's used across Europe and occasionally elsewhere:
https://taginfo.openstr
Hi Tom,
I'd consider this particular proposed use of highway=no to mean "there is a
public highway here but there's no visible path on the ground" to be a
somewhat country-specific and counter-intuitive tagging practice. It's
certainly being suggested here as a solution to a country-specific issue
On 05/05/2020 11:53, Adam Snape wrote:
Hi Tom,
I'd consider this particular proposed use of highway=no to mean "there
is a public highway here but there's no visible path on the ground" to
be a somewhat country-specific and counter-intuitive tagging practice.
It's certainly being suggested he
Hi,
Highway=no seems acceptable to me where a path is permanently physically
blocked by a building or such-like. We're not serving anyone by directing
people into wals. I do, however, disagree with its use to tag definitive
rights of way which are useable but which merely deviate from the route a
Is a "public right of way" a highway?
I suggest not. It's a legal construct, similar to a boundary line.
Perhaps it should be mapped as a separate way, sometimes sharing nodes
with a physical highway, sometimes not.
Martin.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
On Tue, 5 May 2020, 13:26 Martin Wynne, wrote:
> Is a "public right of way" a highway?
>
> I suggest not. It's a legal construct, similar to a boundary line.
>
> Perhaps it should be mapped as a separate way, sometimes sharing nodes
> with a physical highway, sometimes not.
>
In English/Welsh la
On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 11:54, Adam Snape wrote:
> I'd consider this particular proposed use of highway=no to mean "there is a
> public highway here but there's no visible path on the ground" to be a
> somewhat country-specific and counter-intuitive tagging practice. It's
> certainly being sugges
>Highway=no seems acceptable to me where a path is permanently physically
>blocked by a building or such-like. We're not serving anyone by directing
>people into wals. I do, however, disagree with its use to tag definitive
>rights of way which are useable but which merely deviate from the route a
>
On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 19:33, Mike Baggaley via Talk-GB
wrote:
> >Highway=no seems acceptable to me where a path is permanently physically
> >blocked by a building or such-like. We're not serving anyone by directing
> >people into wals. I do, however, disagree with its use to tag definitive
> >righ
Hi Robert,
Thanks a lot for adding Oxfordshire to your comparison tool!
However it reports much lower mapping coverage than I expected. It
appears to be due to a mismatch of prow_ref format. I know that at least
in and around Oxford, most paths have been mapped with a prow_ref based
on the defini
Quick response.
It appears that the tool only accepts as mapped rights of way mapped with
some local identifier, rather than those with a designation tag. Hampshire
is one of the better mapped places in England and Wales. have no problem
with us eventually adding identifiers for PRoW, but surely
This format is quite common. It can be transformed into the other form
(I've done this for one of the Sussexes, and, I suspect, Oxon), but I think
if we are using prow_refs for anything at all it is to communicate with the
relevant Highway Authority, so we should use what they use (and in
particula
On 27 June 2017 at 13:30, SK53 wrote:
> It appears that the tool only accepts as mapped rights of way mapped with
> some local identifier, rather than those with a designation tag. Hampshire
> is one of the better mapped places in England and Wales. have no problem
> with us eventually adding ide
On 27 June 2017 at 11:56, Pierre Riteau wrote:
> However it reports much lower mapping coverage than I expected. It
> appears to be due to a mismatch of prow_ref format. I know that at least
> in and around Oxford, most paths have been mapped with a prow_ref based
> on the definitive statement in
une 2017 15:05:55
To: talk-gb
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way in Oxfordshire and Hampshire
On 27 June 2017 at 13:30, SK53 wrote:
> It appears that the tool only accepts as mapped rights of way mapped with
> some local identifier, rather than those with a designation tag. Hamp
anning
> application or similar.
>
> --
> Be Seeing You - Rob.
> If at first you don't succeed,
> then skydiving isn't for you.
>
> ________
> From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
> Sent: 27 June 2017 15:05:55
> To: talk-gb
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Public
On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 11:30 +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> Some of you have have already come across my Public Rights of Way
> comparison tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ which
> aims to help mappers trying to complete the mapping of Rights of Way
> in their area.
On 23 August 2017 at 15:25, Philip Withnall wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 11:30 +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
>> Some of you have have already come across my Public Rights of Way
>> comparison tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ which
>> aims to help mappers trying t
On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 17:11 +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> On 23 August 2017 at 15:25, Philip Withnall
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 11:30 +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
> > wrote:
> > > Some of you have have already come across my Public Rights of Way
> > > comparison tool
64 matches
Mail list logo
