Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Adam Snape]

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 13:18 Dave F via Talk-GB, 
wrote:

FYI Wiltshire Council's Rights of Way Explorer is not the 'definitive map'.
> It usually a misnomer. Paths are described with words in a  definitive
> statement. Their map is a representation of that data. Many authorities add
> a caveat clarifying that it's not the authoritative document.
>
> Dave F
>

Each highway authority is required to maintain a 'definitive map and
statement'. In all cases the map shows the definitive line of the right of
way. The Statement provides any extra information the authority wished to
record, which in some cases may include a full description of the route but
in other cases may contain no additional information at all.

The caveat most councils supply with their electronic mapping is due to the
fact that there may be discrepancies between their digitised versions and
the actual Definitive Maps (and statements) which are still almost
universally paper based.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 3:04 PM Simon Still  wrote:

>
> I’d actually say *more* of an issue with OSM is paths that are marked that
> ARE NOT a legal right of way.  Around Peaslake in the Surrey Hills there
> are various ‘mountain bike trails’ shown on OSM that are not rights of way
> and which the landowners say should not be ridden.
>
>
If there is a path on the ground, it should be in OSM. Set access=no,
certainly, but the path itself should be in the database.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field **Do tag for the USER**

[ael via Talk-GB]

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 03:47:08PM +, David Woolley wrote:
> On 08/12/2020 15:11, nathan case wrote:
> > I am interested as a path I recently mapped is a PROW but is very dangerous 
> > to cross. It is now marked as disused:highway=path with 
> > access=discourged;designated but it is stilla PROW (byway open to all 
> > traffic in this case):https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93427676
> 
> In that example, "Cross Bay Walk - DO NOT ATTEMPT" violates "name is only
> the name".  It may or may not be possible to justify "Cross Bay Walk", but
> the "DO NOT ATTEMPT" is not going to be a valid part of the name.
 
Given the recent thread, it is odd that it has "warning=hazard"
rather than hazard=yes or something more specific.

> Unless there is a sign saying "unsuitable for pedestrinnoans, horses, and
> vehicles", or similar, I would say "access=discouraged" violates "do not tag
> for the renderer".  The wiki specifically says that an official sign is
> required before using "access=discouraged".

This seems to be taking things far too far. We *should* tag for the
user! Equating subjective with "there isn't a sign" is also pushing
things too far.

We are trying to make OSM the best map we can. Tagging dangerous or
non-existant paths in a way that ordinary users/routers cannot
distinguish is just plain wrong and irresponsible.

I am all in favour of tagging PROWs even where there is nothing on the
ground, but in a way distinct from "proper" paths/ways.

Agreed: do not tag for the renderer, but do tag for the user.

ael


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

This reminds me a bit of this location, also in Wiltshire:

https://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/?lat=51.06209564615185=-2.0421791551466137=3=0

Note the orange diagonal line. That is the line of a bridleway according to the 
Wiltshire ROW data as sourced on rowmaps.com (so not necessarily the definitive 
map). Contrast that to the brown line a bit to its north and west which is the 
bridleway as mapped on OSM, using bridleway signs apparent on the ground plus a 
bit of assumption. The brown line is a well-defined and easily-navigable (on 
horse and bike as well as foot) track, but there are no actual bridleway signs 
on the bit which diverges from the orange  line so it 'may not' be an actual 
bridleway - even though ground evidence suggests it 'probably' is. I first 
mapped this in 2010 from a ground survey,, but lacking any legal source for it 
not being a bridleway, it's remained an OSM bridleway ever since even though 
part of it technically isn't.

The orange line is a random line across a field with no evidence on the ground 
whatsoever. No signs, no gates, no stiles, no nothing - and therefore not 
mappable.

Wiltshire seems to be like this quite often, incidentally: its signposting can 
be a bit inconsistent and I've noticed quite a few divergences between 
web-based council data and ground evidence. We need the definitive data to be 
legally used in OSM in these cases; though maybe the council should really be 
trying to actually divert the path to the on-the-ground route that people 
actually use!

Nick



From: nathan case 
Sent: 08 December 2020 15:11
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

That's a fair viewpoint and I'm open to changing my method.

But what would you suggest in the situation where a PROW runs through a 
building(s)? Map through it as a fully-fledged footway? Doesn't matter what 
your abilities are, you won't be able to go through there - well unless you can 
pass through walls...  At what point does a completely inaccessible, or even 
re-rerouted path (just not in the PROW data), become disused?

I am interested as a path I recently mapped is a PROW but is very dangerous to 
cross. It is now marked as disused:highway=path with 
access=discourged;designated but it is stilla PROW (byway open to all traffic 
in this case): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93427676

-Original Message-
From: Dave F via Talk-GB 
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 2:10 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On 08/12/2020 12:36, nathan case wrote:
> but instead setting as disused:highway. This is what I tend to do when the 
> PROW route is clearly inaccessible from aerial imagery (e.g. due to new 
> buildings, or rivers).

IMO, this is bad mapping.
Just because one person concludes it isn't used by staring at photograph taken 
thousands of feet in the air doesn't mean it isn't.

Accessibility is variable & subjective. What might be a deterrent to a 
wheelchair user, could be considered easy by a high jumper.

Even if it is found to be inaccessible after an on ground survey it doesn't 
mean it's been declared disused.

DaveF

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[nathan case]

> Unless there is a sign saying "unsuitable for pedestrians, horses, and 
> vehicles", or similar, I would say "access=discouraged" violates "do not tag 
> for the renderer".  The wiki specifically says that an official sign is 
> required before using "access=discouraged".

There is a sign: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_Bay_Walk#/media/File:Cross_Bay_Walk_Warning.jpg
 though I'm unsure on how "official" that is. It doesn't have the city/county 
council logo on it, for example. But the city council does discourage the use 
of the route without a guide on their website: 
https://www.lancaster.gov.uk/environmental-health/health-and-safety/cross-bay-walks-guidance-for-walkers-and-organisers

(sorry - I seem to have derailed the original topic).


-Original Message-
From: David Woolley  
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 3:47 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On 08/12/2020 15:11, nathan case wrote:
> I am interested as a path I recently mapped is a PROW but is very 
> dangerous to cross. It is now marked as disused:highway=path with 
> access=discourged;designated but it is stilla PROW (byway open to all 
> traffic in this case):https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93427676

In that example, "Cross Bay Walk - DO NOT ATTEMPT" violates "name is only the 
name".  It may or may not be possible to justify "Cross Bay Walk", but the "DO 
NOT ATTEMPT" is not going to be a valid part of the name.

Unless there is a sign saying "unsuitable for pedestrians, horses, and 
vehicles", or similar, I would say "access=discouraged" violates "do not tag 
for the renderer".  The wiki specifically says that an official sign is 
required before using "access=discouraged".

"warning" appears to be non-standarised, and also subjective.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[David Woolley]

On 08/12/2020 15:11, nathan case wrote:

I am interested as a path I recently mapped is a PROW but is very dangerous to 
cross. It is now marked as disused:highway=path with 
access=discourged;designated but it is stilla PROW (byway open to all traffic 
in this case):https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93427676


In that example, "Cross Bay Walk - DO NOT ATTEMPT" violates "name is 
only the name".  It may or may not be possible to justify "Cross Bay 
Walk", but the "DO NOT ATTEMPT" is not going to be a valid part of the name.


Unless there is a sign saying "unsuitable for pedestrians, horses, and 
vehicles", or similar, I would say "access=discouraged" violates "do not 
tag for the renderer".  The wiki specifically says that an official sign 
is required before using "access=discouraged".


"warning" appears to be non-standarised, and also subjective.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[nathan case]

That's a fair viewpoint and I'm open to changing my method. 

But what would you suggest in the situation where a PROW runs through a 
building(s)? Map through it as a fully-fledged footway? Doesn't matter what 
your abilities are, you won't be able to go through there - well unless you can 
pass through walls...  At what point does a completely inaccessible, or even 
re-rerouted path (just not in the PROW data), become disused?

I am interested as a path I recently mapped is a PROW but is very dangerous to 
cross. It is now marked as disused:highway=path with 
access=discourged;designated but it is stilla PROW (byway open to all traffic 
in this case): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93427676

-Original Message-
From: Dave F via Talk-GB  
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 2:10 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On 08/12/2020 12:36, nathan case wrote:
> but instead setting as disused:highway. This is what I tend to do when the 
> PROW route is clearly inaccessible from aerial imagery (e.g. due to new 
> buildings, or rivers).

IMO, this is bad mapping.
Just because one person concludes it isn't used by staring at photograph taken 
thousands of feet in the air doesn't mean it isn't.

Accessibility is variable & subjective. What might be a deterrent to a 
wheelchair user, could be considered easy by a high jumper.

Even if it is found to be inaccessible after an on ground survey it doesn't 
mean it's been declared disused.

DaveF

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Simon Still]

> On 8 Dec 2020, at 14:20, SK53  > wrote:
> Personally I do not generally map PRoWs which have no on-the-ground traces 
> (particularly after my experience 
> 
>  in Carmathenshire in 2011), although I do allow a wide latitude of sources 
> to identify traces of PRoWs (overgrown stiles, rotting footpath signs, etc.) 
> when it might be useful to do so. Keeping such things invisible from the 
> regular user of OSM has advantages in that a non-existent path blighting a 
> walk is less likely. Of course if you report it as obstructed to the HA and 
> get a suitable reply then you have substantial personal knowledge about the 
> PRoW.
> Jerry


If there is a RoW surely it should be marked - these are *rights of way* 
whether or not they have been kept in good order, blocked or are rarely used.  
NOT including it on a map surely just means it less likely that it will be used 
in future.  

I’d actually say *more* of an issue with OSM is paths that are marked that ARE 
NOT a legal right of way.  Around Peaslake in the Surrey Hills there are 
various ‘mountain bike trails’ shown on OSM that are not rights of way and 
which the landowners say should not be ridden.  

> On 8 Dec 2020, at 14:10, Dave F via Talk-GB  > wrote:
> 
> IMO, this is bad mapping.
> Just because one person concludes it isn't used by staring at photograph 
> taken thousands of feet in the air doesn't mean it isn't.
> Accessibility is variable & subjective. What might be a deterrent to a 
> wheelchair user, could be considered easy by a high jumper.
> Even if it is found to be inaccessible after an on ground survey it doesn't 
> mean it's been declared disused.

Indeed - I know of bridleway across fields and bogs in the Lake District where 
the ground is too wet to retain any signs of use distinct from cattle hoof 
prints. Signposts rot, signs fall down or get obscured by undergrowth. 

There are paths I walk and trails I ride that we go out and clear of nettles 
and bracken to keep them usable in summer. ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 13:18, Dave F via Talk-GB
 wrote:
>
> https://snipboard.io/scrm5R.jpg
>
> There you go, free of any supposed copyright infringement.

Not quite. Before we're able to use any third-party data in OSM, we
need to verify that it is available under a suitable licence. So you
would still need to get permission from Wiltshire Council to use that
data, and ensure that any required attribution statements or
disclaimers are correctly recorded at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Public_Rights_of_Way_Data_from_local_councils
.

If you trust the author of Rowmaps, you could make use of the
Wiltshire data that's available from
https://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/WT/ (which claims to be re-usable
under the OGL v3) once the appropriate attribution statement is added
to the OSM Contributors page linked above. However the precise
attribution statement required isn't clear, and the copyright text in
the files on rowmaps conflicts with the statement that it's available
under the OGL v3. (If the text in the files is correct, then they're
incompatible with OSM use, due to the additional sub-licensing
requirement.)

So I think we'd be better to wait for a successful outcome at
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_rights_of_way_gis_data_9
before using the Wiltshire data. Many other councils have made their
data available under terms we can use in OSM, as you can see from
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/open-data/ .

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Mark Lee via Talk-GB]

That's very interesting Jerry, thanks. I thought the byway's reference was
a bit odd actually as in it's the same as the byway that it intersects. In
my experience, usually the paths I've looked at are a single line ie. a
single beginning and end so maybe it has been "tacked on" to an existing
path rather than given a new reference.

Mark


On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 14:22 SK53,  wrote:

> Yes, these are not infrequent. We may have discussed some specific
> examples before, but one which comes to mind is one crossing
> 
> the River Derwent at Duffield. This is marked on the definitive map and the
> name of a track "Save Penny Lane" suggests the purpose of the ford. Dave
> Venables went & did a couple of surveys to find if anything existed but
> drew a blank. Not long afterwards I had the good fortune to meet someone
> concerned with the Millenium Meadow to the S of the site of the crossing
> and apparently the ford was washed out long ago (if memory serves me right
> late 1800s).
>
> It's always worth looking at other sources of information. For instance,
> the first OS 7th series with overprinted PRoW data appeared in the late
> 1960s, and these maps are now out of copyright so maybe usable (as Robert
> says it may be a little more complex as the PRoW data copyrights may rest
> with the Highway Authority & I dont know if local government copyright
> follows the same rules as for central government). Even some 1st edition
> Landranger issued in 1974 may be usable as most were photo-enlarged
> versions of the 7th series. Looking at existing allowable sources (NLS maps
> within editors) I find it interesting that there is no sign of a path or
> track here on OS 7th series, NLS 1:10,560 and 1st edition 1:25k. It is
> marked on the GSGS 1:25k which will have been compiled from older 6 inch
> mapping. This suggests that the bridleway ceased to be used before around
> 1940. One possibility is that it has been added to the definitive map
> fairly recently as part of a lost paths initiative.
>
> Personally I do not generally map PRoWs which have no on-the-ground traces
> (particularly after my experience
> 
> in Carmathenshire in 2011), although I do allow a wide latitude of sources
> to identify traces of PRoWs (overgrown stiles, rotting footpath signs,
> etc.) when it might be useful to do so. Keeping such things invisible from
> the regular user of OSM has advantages in that a non-existent path
> blighting a walk is less likely. Of course if you report it as obstructed
> to the HA and get a suitable reply then you have substantial personal
> knowledge about the PRoW.
>
> Jerry
>
> PS. As an aside does anyone know if there is an article in the Charles
> Close Society journal about how PRoW data were added to the 7th series?
>
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 12:15, ael via Talk-GB 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:36:31AM +, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:
>> > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
>> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
>> > WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to
>> have
>> > been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I
>> can't
>> > see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete
>>
>>  I have come across some of these where it is no longer possible to
>>  walk or ride. Especially when they cross rivers where there was
>>  presumably once a ford. In at least one case that I surveyed, there
>>  were large trees blocking access on the river bank, and absolutely
>>  no sign of a ford in the river itself. Crossing there looked potentially
>>  dangerous. These had been added by armchair mappers from a definitive
>>  map.
>>
>>  OSM should not direct users onto useless and perhaps dangerous ways.
>>  As I recall, in that case I removed the section crossing the river
>>  and added a note.
>>
>>  ael
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[SK53]

Yes, these are not infrequent. We may have discussed some specific examples
before, but one which comes to mind is one crossing
 the
River Derwent at Duffield. This is marked on the definitive map and the
name of a track "Save Penny Lane" suggests the purpose of the ford. Dave
Venables went & did a couple of surveys to find if anything existed but
drew a blank. Not long afterwards I had the good fortune to meet someone
concerned with the Millenium Meadow to the S of the site of the crossing
and apparently the ford was washed out long ago (if memory serves me right
late 1800s).

It's always worth looking at other sources of information. For instance,
the first OS 7th series with overprinted PRoW data appeared in the late
1960s, and these maps are now out of copyright so maybe usable (as Robert
says it may be a little more complex as the PRoW data copyrights may rest
with the Highway Authority & I dont know if local government copyright
follows the same rules as for central government). Even some 1st edition
Landranger issued in 1974 may be usable as most were photo-enlarged
versions of the 7th series. Looking at existing allowable sources (NLS maps
within editors) I find it interesting that there is no sign of a path or
track here on OS 7th series, NLS 1:10,560 and 1st edition 1:25k. It is
marked on the GSGS 1:25k which will have been compiled from older 6 inch
mapping. This suggests that the bridleway ceased to be used before around
1940. One possibility is that it has been added to the definitive map
fairly recently as part of a lost paths initiative.

Personally I do not generally map PRoWs which have no on-the-ground traces
(particularly after my experience

in Carmathenshire in 2011), although I do allow a wide latitude of sources
to identify traces of PRoWs (overgrown stiles, rotting footpath signs,
etc.) when it might be useful to do so. Keeping such things invisible from
the regular user of OSM has advantages in that a non-existent path
blighting a walk is less likely. Of course if you report it as obstructed
to the HA and get a suitable reply then you have substantial personal
knowledge about the PRoW.

Jerry

PS. As an aside does anyone know if there is an article in the Charles
Close Society journal about how PRoW data were added to the 7th series?

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 12:15, ael via Talk-GB 
wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:36:31AM +, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:
> > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
> > WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to
> have
> > been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I
> can't
> > see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete
>
>  I have come across some of these where it is no longer possible to
>  walk or ride. Especially when they cross rivers where there was
>  presumably once a ford. In at least one case that I surveyed, there
>  were large trees blocking access on the river bank, and absolutely
>  no sign of a ford in the river itself. Crossing there looked potentially
>  dangerous. These had been added by armchair mappers from a definitive
>  map.
>
>  OSM should not direct users onto useless and perhaps dangerous ways.
>  As I recall, in that case I removed the section crossing the river
>  and added a note.
>
>  ael
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 08/12/2020 12:36, nathan case wrote:

but instead setting as disused:highway. This is what I tend to do when the PROW 
route is clearly inaccessible from aerial imagery (e.g. due to new buildings, 
or rivers).


IMO, this is bad mapping.
Just because one person concludes it isn't used by staring at photograph 
taken thousands of feet in the air doesn't mean it isn't.


Accessibility is variable & subjective. What might be a deterrent to a 
wheelchair user, could be considered easy by a high jumper.


Even if it is found to be inaccessible after an on ground survey it 
doesn't mean it's been declared disused.


DaveF

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 08/12/2020 12:42, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:

Ah sorry, I shall remove it then Robert. I have drawn it freehand based on
what I'd seen on their site as a right of way. Presumably then, if there's
no established path, I can never add it to OSM because the definitive map
is my only source for this information. Even if I walk it and use my GPS
recording, the source of the path is ultimately the definitive map? How
does that work?



https://snipboard.io/scrm5R.jpg

There you go, free of any supposed copyright infringement.

FYI Wiltshire Council's Rights of Way Explorer is not the 'definitive 
map'. It usually a misnomer. Paths are described with words in a  
definitive statement. Their map is a representation of that data. Many 
authorities add a caveat clarifying that it's not the authoritative 
document.


DaveF
R.jpg
https://snipboard.io/scrm5R.jpg
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 12:37, Dave F  wrote:
> On 08/12/2020 12:08, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:39, Mark Lee via Talk-GB
> >  wrote:
> >> Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway 
> >> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the 
> >> Wiltshire Definitive Map.
> > Generally these maps have lines drawn on top of
> > Copyrighted Ordnance Survey base-maps, which means they're off-limits
> > for use in OSM.
>
> Do you have evidence of this being the case? Has someone from OS (or
> anyone outside OSM) stated that?

Since the Definitive Maps are someone else's work, without a licence /
permission, we aren't allowed to make use of them in OSM. So the
question is usually moot. I'm not aware of any instances of a
Surveying Authority granting a re-use licence for its definitive maps.

But, generally speaking, the base-map will contain a OS copyright
notice, and OS have historically claimed derived data rights over
anything drawn on top of their base-maps. This would mean that local
authorities aren't able to authorise any re-use. That's changed
slightly in the last few years, with OS's "Presumption to Publish"
policy. But this makes it clear that it's only the derived data on its
own (and not the basemaps) that third-parties are able to licence. See
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-government/licensing-agreements/presumption-to-publish-form
and in particular point 5: "For example, you can’t use OS licensed
data as a background picture to give your data better real-world
context." The upshot of this is that Councils are able to allow re-use
of their Rights of Way data if it's separated from the OS base-map
(e.g. as a stand-alone GIS file), but not the Definitive Maps
themselves.

I guess if a council is still using a very old OS base-map that has
since gone out of copyright, things might be different. But you'd
still need an explicit licence from the council if their depictions of
the Rights of Way were still in copyright. And there's a question
about the status of derived data rights on derivations made while the
base-maps were still in copyright.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Mark Lee via Talk-GB]

Thanks. I'll go back and have a closer look. It was part of a long ride so
I didn't do much checking at the time.

Mark

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 12:30 Dave F via Talk-GB, 
wrote:

>
>
> On 08/12/2020 09:36, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:
> > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
> > WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to
> have
> > been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I
> can't
> > see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete
> > track, however, there is a locked gate across that track (which I've also
> > just now added). What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no
> physical
> > evidence and no rerouting such as along a field boundary such as I've
> seen
> > in other cases on OSM.
>
> Welcome to OSM.
>
> If I come across a non obvious path I attempt to look around for a worn
> way, especially through boundaries. Aerial imagery suggests the edge of
> the field is used. Please check on the ground first to confirm it's
> still used.
> http://osmz.ru/imagery/#20/51.12946/-1.79511/bing
>
> I would mark the way as the definitive map alignment & add a note
> describing the direction that's actually used.
>
> It may be words in a book, but definitive statements are physical evidence.
>
> As the access tag is to describe legal use, I'd remove it in this case.
>
> Both bicycle & walking on a bridleway are designated.
>
> The surface tag is a useful addition for paths.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface
>
>
> Dave F
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Mark Lee via Talk-GB]

Ah sorry, I shall remove it then Robert. I have drawn it freehand based on
what I'd seen on their site as a right of way. Presumably then, if there's
no established path, I can never add it to OSM because the definitive map
is my only source for this information. Even if I walk it and use my GPS
recording, the source of the path is ultimately the definitive map? How
does that work?

Mark

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 12:19 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists), <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:39, Mark Lee via Talk-GB
>  wrote:
> > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
> Wiltshire Definitive Map.
>
> I see that you've put source="Wiltshire Definitive Map" in the
> tagging. Do you have permission to use information from the Definitive
> Map in OpenStreetMap? Generally these maps have lines drawn on top of
> Copyrighted Ordnance Survey base-maps, which means they're off-limits
> for use in OSM.
>
> Digitised Public Rights of Way data (without the base-map background)
> is another matter though, and it is possible to get permission to use
> these. But we need an explicit statement / licence from each Council.
> Generally this will be permission to use the data under the Open
> Government Licence, and we would then need to document this with the
> specified attribution statement at
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Public_Rights_of_Way_Data_from_local_councils
> . Wiltshire is not currently listed there, although there is an FOI
> request in progress to get the data and permission to use it:
> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_rights_of_way_gis_data_9
> .
>
> I maintain a table of which authorities we have PRoW data for and what
> licence it can be used under at
> https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/open-data/ . Any updates and corrections
> to this would be most welcome.
>
> Robert.
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 08/12/2020 12:08, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:39, Mark Lee via Talk-GB
 wrote:

Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the 
Wiltshire Definitive Map.

Generally these maps have lines drawn on top of
Copyrighted Ordnance Survey base-maps, which means they're off-limits
for use in OSM.



Do you have evidence of this being the case? Has someone from OS (or 
anyone outside OSM) stated that?



Dave F



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[nathan case]

As a public right of way, the highway exists by law - regardless of any 
evidence on the ground or lack thereof.

I suggest not removing the section, but instead setting as disused:highway. 
This is what I tend to do when the PROW route is clearly inaccessible from 
aerial imagery (e.g. due to new buildings, or rivers). 

Of course, as has also been mentioned, if you do come across situations like 
this on a ground survey - then please do report to your local authority, who 
have a legal obligation to clear any obstacles or re-route the path.

-Original Message-
From: ael via Talk-GB 
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 12:01 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:36:31AM +, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:
> Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the 
> WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to 
> have been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person 
> and I can't see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close 
> to a concrete

 I have come across some of these where it is no longer possible to  walk or 
ride. Especially when they cross rivers where there was  presumably once a 
ford. In at least one case that I surveyed, there  were large trees blocking 
access on the river bank, and absolutely  no sign of a ford in the river 
itself. Crossing there looked potentially  dangerous. These had been added by 
armchair mappers from a definitive  map.

 OSM should not direct users onto useless and perhaps dangerous ways.
 As I recall, in that case I removed the section crossing the river  and added 
a note.

 ael


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Mark Lee via Talk-GB]

I'm with you Phil but the locked gate is on a track parallel (50 yards
perhaps) to where the bridleway should be. They're both shown on the
definitive map so that's probably a legally blocked access. I would have
thought that the farmer would have preferred me using it though than for me
to exercise my legal right to traipse through their crops as per Martin's
suggestion.

I'd read back through previous discussions on here where the OSM path does
not follow the definitive map and was surprised to read that what you find
on the ground, in person, is what should be documented as opposed to what's
actually legal. I know of a few instances where the established path runs
around field boundaries or nearby tracks and OSM is at odds to the
definitive map.

I'll aim to head back out there and have a more concerted look when I can.

Mark




On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 10:37 Philip Barnes,  wrote:

> Firstly, before worrying about mapping is to report the illegal
> obsruction,  i.e. the locked gate to the highway authority so that action
> can be taken to get the problem resolved.
>
> In my experience they like a photo of the problem.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> On Tuesday, 8 December 2020, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:
> > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
> > WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to
> have
> > been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I
> can't
> > see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete
> > track, however, there is a locked gate across that track (which I've also
> > just now added). What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no
> physical
> > evidence and no rerouting such as along a field boundary such as I've
> seen
> > in other cases on OSM.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mark
> >
>
> --
> Sent from my Sailfish device
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 08/12/2020 09:36, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:

Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to have
been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I can't
see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete
track, however, there is a locked gate across that track (which I've also
just now added). What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no physical
evidence and no rerouting such as along a field boundary such as I've seen
in other cases on OSM.


Welcome to OSM.

If I come across a non obvious path I attempt to look around for a worn 
way, especially through boundaries. Aerial imagery suggests the edge of 
the field is used. Please check on the ground first to confirm it's 
still used.

http://osmz.ru/imagery/#20/51.12946/-1.79511/bing

I would mark the way as the definitive map alignment & add a note 
describing the direction that's actually used.


It may be words in a book, but definitive statements are physical evidence.

As the access tag is to describe legal use, I'd remove it in this case.

Both bicycle & walking on a bridleway are designated.

The surface tag is a useful addition for paths.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface


Dave F


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:39, Mark Lee via Talk-GB
 wrote:
> Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway 
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the 
> Wiltshire Definitive Map.

I see that you've put source="Wiltshire Definitive Map" in the
tagging. Do you have permission to use information from the Definitive
Map in OpenStreetMap? Generally these maps have lines drawn on top of
Copyrighted Ordnance Survey base-maps, which means they're off-limits
for use in OSM.

Digitised Public Rights of Way data (without the base-map background)
is another matter though, and it is possible to get permission to use
these. But we need an explicit statement / licence from each Council.
Generally this will be permission to use the data under the Open
Government Licence, and we would then need to document this with the
specified attribution statement at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Public_Rights_of_Way_Data_from_local_councils
. Wiltshire is not currently listed there, although there is an FOI
request in progress to get the data and permission to use it:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_rights_of_way_gis_data_9
.

I maintain a table of which authorities we have PRoW data for and what
licence it can be used under at
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/open-data/ . Any updates and corrections
to this would be most welcome.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[ael via Talk-GB]

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:36:31AM +, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:
> Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
> WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to have
> been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I can't
> see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete

 I have come across some of these where it is no longer possible to
 walk or ride. Especially when they cross rivers where there was
 presumably once a ford. In at least one case that I surveyed, there
 were large trees blocking access on the river bank, and absolutely
 no sign of a ford in the river itself. Crossing there looked potentially
 dangerous. These had been added by armchair mappers from a definitive
 map.

 OSM should not direct users onto useless and perhaps dangerous ways.
 As I recall, in that case I removed the section crossing the river
 and added a note.

 ael


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Philip Barnes]

Firstly, before worrying about mapping is to report the illegal obsruction,  
i.e. the locked gate to the highway authority so that action can be taken to 
get the problem resolved.

In my experience they like a photo of the problem.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Tuesday, 8 December 2020, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:
> Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
> WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to have
> been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I can't
> see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete
> track, however, there is a locked gate across that track (which I've also
> just now added). What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no physical
> evidence and no rerouting such as along a field boundary such as I've seen
> in other cases on OSM.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mark
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Martin Wynne]

What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no physical evidence


You walk along them. There is then physical evidence, and you can map 
it. I've done that a lot.


Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Simon Still]

Should be recorded as per the definitive map - lots like that across welsh 
hilltops etc.  I’ve used a gps to follow them in the fog before 

> On 8 Dec 2020, at 09:36, Mark Lee via Talk-GB  
> wrote:
> 
> Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway 
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479 
> ) which is detailed on the 
> WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to have 
> been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I can't 
> see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete track, 
> however, there is a locked gate across that track (which I've also just now 
> added). What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no physical evidence 
> and no rerouting such as along a field boundary such as I've seen in other 
> cases on OSM.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mark
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Mark Lee via Talk-GB]

Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to have
been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I can't
see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete
track, however, there is a locked gate across that track (which I've also
just now added). What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no physical
evidence and no rerouting such as along a field boundary such as I've seen
in other cases on OSM.

Thanks,

Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb