>As far as I know, "ORPA" is a term invented by Ordnance survey to >describe and mark some unclassified roads that might otherwise appear >to be private tracks on their maps. These are routes that aren't one >of the designated public rights of way (footpath, bridleway, byway, >restricted byway), but are a public highway or some sort, so you have >the right to use them. These will not be signed as "ORPA" on the >ground, and I guess the only way you could know the specific "ORPA" >status is by looking at the OS map. Hence I guess we shouldn't really >have these in our data.
There is plenty of implicit evidence that something is an "ORPA" though without looking at an OS map. Typical diagnosis is an unsigned, byway like way, typically with high hedges like a lane, and typically with footpaths branching off it, as in a lane. Also evidence of public use e.g. footprints, hoof prints, other walkers. There are a good number of such ways near me that I could confidently classify as such without looking at an OS map, though to date I've generally just tagged them as highway=track, or highway=byway. TBH, in the interest of making our maps useful, I would recommend tagging with "ORPA" in such cases (but obviously I wouldn't advocate copying from an OS map!) source=common_sense, or source=30_years_of_walking_in_the_UK_countryside would be adequate. When you've been walking a long time you get to recognise these things. If we mis-diagnose, the landowner, or whoever, can always remove the tag and retag with access=private; I have taken such steps with incorrectly tagged private tracks in the past myself. Nick
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
