Hi
I think - and it's only my opinion for what it's worth - that Nick's
point may fall into a grey area. My understanding is that there are in
practice at least four kinds of way that get called "permissive":
a. Ones where there has been a formal written agreement made with the
Highway Authority (often as part of a negotiation around the diversion
of a public right of way). These are usually waymarked - at least at
each end - with the usual white plastic disc - but in this case the disc
should carry the word "permissive" (amongst any other wording) and/or
carry a white arrow on a black background (not black on yellow or any
other combination including yellow).
b. Ones where there has been an agreement made on a less formal basis
with the Highway Authority but where no written agreement is on file
(sloppy practice but ...). These may or may not be waymarked as above.
c. Ones which are informal in the sense that "everyone knows" (basically
meaning the locals) that it's OK. May or may not be waymarked in some
way or other. Includes paths created by local charities, parish
councils, etc. where there is no formal agreement or actual legal right
of way.
d. The fourth category is formal inasmuch as the landowner is in receipt
of public funds for allowing the use of the way. These are often called
"DEFRA paths" and all listed on http://cwr.naturalengland.org.uk/ .
These should be signed at each end with a posted map. The maps are also
available at the URL given in the previous sentence.
As we all know, the OS also depicts some permissive paths on some of
their mapping (in orange rather than green). Personally, I don't know
what status these paths are or where the OS gets its information (I
would assume from Highway Authorities so the paths concerned are
probably type (a) in my listing above).
As for OSM use, my own feeling - and it is no more than that - is that
assuming one of us has walked and recorded the path on the ground:
1. Type (a) could be recorded as a permissive path if the information
comes from the Highway Authority e.g. the existence of the written
agreement - but not based on its presence on an OS map.
2. Type (b) like type (a) but probably not on the OS map anyway.
3. Type (c) - based on local knowledge.
4. Type (d) - I simply don't know! Perhaps someone could take a look at
the web site I have mentioned and offer a view!
Mike
On 22/04/2011 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 Public Right Of Way map for Northumberland
(Nick Whitelegg)
2. Re: National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap (monxton)
3. Re: National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap
(Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists))
4. Re: National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap (David Dixon)
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
--
*/Mike Harris/*
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
