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 disagree that it is completely pointless - there may be an instance where you don't walk a complete path but have evidence there is a path there via signposts at either end, and then see a path on NPE. One can make a reasonable assumption, as a first approximation, that the path follows the NPE map and add it in - someone else can then correct it later. Remember that OSM is arguably about getting first-approximations in early (that way you grow the user base) followed by later refinement. >Because of the poor upkeep of footpaths in many parts of the country, >it's often impossible to tell which side of a stream, wood or hedge the >path travels. True to some extent. In such instances I would add the path according to my GPS trail but ensure that the hedge/water is *not* added. Then users can follow the OSM map and make up their own minds. If it's not clear where the path goes, one can hardly blame walkers if they get it wrong! In such instances, the error is with the council for not signposting the path correctly. >If not completely overgrown, the physical trail is often >no more than a rabbit track! Because of the ambiguity, it doesn't seem >logical to suggest that seeing other walkers on it means that it's >'permissive'. They could be trespassing too. I think one has to apply a bit of common-sense here. In instances where there's a worn path with footprints, you see other walkers, and there are gates which invite walker use, I think one can assume with 99% certainty that it's at the very least a permissive path. Agreed you couldn't assume that it's permissive just because you see one other person hacking through a wood though. >However, my question was not about where you can see a path but can't >tell if it is a legal right of way or not without looking at the OS map. >It was about when the physical evidence of the path fizzles out and the >only way you know which way to proceed is to look at a copyrighted map. >You suggest drawing a straight line between the last known physical >evidence point, and the next one. This doesn't seem satisfactory to me ? >that line could cut through crops, private property, industrial plants, >protected habitats etc. >It isn't reasonable to declare that a particular >way exists and put the onus on the landowner to refute it. Assuming we >expect the map to be used in practice to navigate, then putting straight >paths across countryside without knowing that they exist or have ever >existed along that line, is simply inviting people to trespass. I have to admit that I was not thinking about the sorts of cases where the path completely disappears for maybe half a mile or so. I was thinking of the (much more common IMX) case where a path enters a field by a stile, then there's another stile at the other end. Most walkers would assume you go from one to the other. So if OSM shows a straight line, OSM is only showing what most walkers do. My own personal opinion on this is that it's reasonable to map what most people would do. I'd agree however that if there is a long stretch where one cannot deduce the line of the right of way (e.g. several fields) one could not map it. >I'm coming to the conclusion that OSM will never map GB rural walking >routes at a level of accuracy required by a hiker. Never say "never". Sorry to disagree so strongly, but I don't think one can take this attitude at all. In my experience, the main problem is difficulty in marking field boundaries, woods, etc; and this is only a temporary problem. As more and more OS maps go out of copyright, so we can take more and more information from old OS maps. I believe some of the 1:25000 maps were published in 1958, which means that they are *already* out of copyright. Andy R is running a project to have these scanned in just like NPE. These show field boundaries, invaluable for OSM. Similarly as more and more aerial imagery becomes available, so this can be used as a source too. The earliest OS maps showing actual public rights of way were published I believe in the early 60s, which means that we'll be able to use them within five years or so. True the ROWs might have changed but one can then do that on the ground. The advent of increasingly powerful and full featured mobile devices opens up possibilities too. Rather than a standard map, one could use a 3D view of the landscape on a phone, perhaps using real photos too (see thread on dev). Nick _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
