Ian Spencer wrote: >Sent: 13 May 2010 12:17 PM >To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Ways - tagging? (was Re: Talk-GB Digest, >Vol 44, Issue 19) > >I think it would be useful to have a think about how we might tag >validated definitive ways in addition to the public footpath recognising >that there are potentially 3 different versions of a path: > >1) The official published rights of way - say from OS. >2) OSM interpretation of rights of way (sourced from a combination of >survey, reinterpretation of LA data and OS data) which could differ. >(The difference between (1) & (2) is the to-do list with the LA >effectively) >3) The walkable paths which are considered by the public to be the way, >even if they are not the formal definition. > >While I wouldn't argue with a farmer based on OSM, if we knew what the >derivation was, and the status of any diversions, then at least you can >stride across that newly planted crop with a bit more confidence. I >don't think the current tagging regime exactly covers the above - and I >doubt there is great confidence in the legal validity of of a footpath >tagged in OSM as a Public Footpath.
I just wouldn't go there. It's a big can of worms. If I find a path on the ground that's what goes in OSM. I try not to worry about whether it's a public right of way, permissive path or path that might or might not have rights because its not currently in the LA's ROW statements. Huge numbers of the latter type of path about of course. Where I end up doing a walk which takes me across a field (according to the current OS 1:25k map), but where I don't see any footfall, either across the field or around it, then I make that first footfall on the alignment of the OS map as best I can discern it. And the tracklog from that I upload and use for OSM. If on the other hand I see the OS has the path going straight through the sugarbeet but the footfall is clearly around the edge of the field, then it's the field boundary route what I walk, log and put in OSM. In my view it's not for us to try to be definitive, that's not our role, it is for us to map footpaths. Cheers Andy > >It seems to be that there should be a definitive-way tag with status of >yes, disputed, (and implicitly, no) and another of definitive-way-source >as you cannot establish a definitive way by GPS, even though you can for >the de facto line of the path (being able to see the difference could be >useful). > >Ian > > >Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote on 13/05/2010 10:51: >> Mike, >> >> A very comprehensive reply, thanks for that. It would be worth having >what >> you have written on a relevant wiki page as its probably the best write- >up >> of the arrangements as we know them. >> >> Cheers >> >> Andy >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb- >>> boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Mike Harris >>> Sent: 13 May 2010 9:06 AM >>> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org >>> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19 >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> My understanding of PRoW law is that: >> > >_______________________________________________ >Talk-GB mailing list >Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2870 - Release Date: 05/12/10 >19:26:00 _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
