A PROW is "theoretical" in the sense that it may not follow the exact
same course on the ground. But the fact that a hedge or whatever is
blocking a PROW does not create a legal diversion of the PROW - you are
not automatically entitled to leave the PROW in order to continue your
walk. So the line of the PROW and the line of the "beaten track" may be
different. The path you walk in practice is obviously a path, but
whether a PROW exists over that path is something that only the council
(or the courts) can decide. There is a legal process for changing the
route of a PROW..
Hence: there is a need for both - surveys for the line of the path, and
information from the powers-that-be for the ROW status.
On 2016-12-21 13:25, Dave F wrote:
> Yeah, sorry about that ;-)
>
> All: Are we greed that if it's *definitely* been issued under OGL, a local
> authority's data can be used within OSM?
>
> And by 'used' I don't necessarily mean copied directly. I'm overlaying my
> LA's PROW data to see what's missing so I can walk & survey it detail.
>
> Please tell me we're agreed that an on the ground survey is best :-)
>
> DaveF
>
> On 21/12/2016 11:28, Paul Berry wrote:
> Thanks everyone for the rapid influx of comments. I've clearly mined a deep
> vein here.
>
> In my locale, the council's records are overlays onto OS mapping, so this is
> what I'm taking away from the conversation:
> You should not copy from these maps, but they are useful to get an idea of
> what is missing and can then be surveyed.
>
> Another reason not to copy is that they are not 100% accurate and we
> should map what is on the ground
>
> Regards,
> _Paul_
>
> On 21 December 2016 at 10:59, Philip Barnes <p...@trigpoint.me.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-12-21 at 10:39 +0000, Paul Berry wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> As you probably know, local authorities must keep available an up-to-
>> date copy of rights of way for inspection. Can this information then
>> be incorporated into OSM, having been witnessed, or is it a case of
>> public but copyrighted? I'm currently nursing a complaint about a
>> rural right of way blockage (without a stopping-up order) in my area
>> and have had the need to get very familiar with my local footpaths...
>>
> In most cases it cannot be simply incorporated into OSM. The definitive
> maps were drawn onto OS maps, and all I have seen are overlayed onto OS
> maps with the words Crown Copyright.
>
> You should not copy from these maps, but they are useful to get an idea
> of what is missing and can then be surveyed.
>
> Another reason not to copy is that they are not 100% accurate and we
> should map what is on the ground. The maps were originally drawn by
> parish councils, and not always accurately. For example here in
> Shropshire a path is shown passing through a house, built on a right of
> way? No, the house was built in the 1500s, and the pen must have
> slipped.
>
> The other advantage of surveying is that we can map the barriers, this
> is when OSM can beat OS as a walking map. When you survey the paths,
> please map the stiles, kissing_gates, gates etc. That is important
> information for many walkers.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [1]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
-------------------------
[2]
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com [2]
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Links:
------
[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[2]
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
