Whoops - resending as I used the wrong account at my end and got bumped
by the lists moderator - silly me!
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 15:44:31 +0100
From: Mike Harris <m...@delco.idps.co.uk>
To: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) <ajrli...@googlemail.com>
CC: 'Mike Harris' <mik...@googlemail.com>, talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Andy
I could do that - but which wiki page do you think would be the most
appropriate? Obviously this is 'only' an 'England and Wales' issue -
albeit important for those of us who OSM etc. around this patch of the
world!
Mike
On 13/05/2010 10:51, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
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:
1. The definitive statement (which is prepared by an actual survey on the
ground - not from a map - although it might subsequently be plotted onto a
map) takes precedence over the definitive map where there are differences
between the two. Thus the statement should not involve the OS.
2. The definitive map - properly defined - is the copy kept by the Highway
Authority (HA). There may be 'definitive map copies' issued in hard copy to
involved parties (like the charity for which I work) or in electronic form
(some HAs issue full 'interactive' versions of the definitive map on the
web). These have no legal standing - although very useful - and may not be
as up-to-date as "THE" definitive map.
3. Even "the" definitive map may be a bit out of date as HAs often have a
backlog in creating the "Definitive Map Modification Orders" (DMMOs) that
enshrine a change in the PRoW network (diversion, creation, extinguishment,
dedication) - this backlog may be more than a year in some areas and will
worsen as funds disappear under present financial constraints.
4. OS mapping at 1:25k of PRoWs relies (especially outside of urban areas
and ways on the 'List of Streets') on the OS being notified of any changes.
This is often done (but rather haphazardly) by the HA - but can equally be
done by a member of the public. They do not keep PRoWs up-to-date pro-
actively. Even when notified, the OS may take years to do an update. In
theory the update should be on the next copy of the relevant 1:25k map (and
does tend to appear earlier on digital than on paper versions) but it can -
and often does - take several years. Complex and major changes in my area
have taken over 10 years of constant nagging to get the OS to update!
5. Anomalies on the ground with OS mapping are common. I log about 100 per
annum in my area. There may also be anomalies on the ground compared with
the definitive map. These two sets of anomalies may themselves differ.
Anomalies include:
- minor unofficial diversions made by the landowner (or sometimes the
general public!) for convenience. This does not change the line of the
PRoW.
- major unofficial diversions made by a landowner for his/her convenience
(sometimes with the legal route being blocked). This does not change the
line of the PRoW.
- official diversions not yet recorded by the OS (see above). This does not
change the line of the PRoW.
- genuine legal anomalies such as a path ending at a parish boundary (often
because the magistrate charged with making the definitive map record was
also the local landowner and 'forgot' to record the path on the original
definitive map).
- 'lost ways' that got missed off the original definitive map (and under
current legislation will be lost for ever if not added by 2025).
It's complicated and I'm not advising anyone what to do or not do (apart
>from forcing the OS to come clean and disavow any copyright interest in
PRoW data - as others have said, the HAs are usually more than happy to
release PRoW data as part of their public duty but unfortunately the OS
have lost all sense of public duty - as opposed to commercial self-interest
- unless pressured).
mikh43
On 12/05/2010 12:00,talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
talk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (Robert Whittaker (OSM Talk
GB))
2. Re: National Byway cycle route (Dave F.)
3. Re: National Byway cycle route (Sam Vekemans)
4. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (Andy Robinson (blackadder-
lists))
5. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (Andy Robinson (blackadder-
lists))
6. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (James Davis)
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
--
Mike Harris
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
--
*Mike Harris*
--
*/Mike Harris/*
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
