What I have done in such situations is:
- Remove designation tags from the actually used paths. Access with foot=yes is - Add the formal line of the path with the designation tag and access tags, but without highway tags. Specific examples I've mapped in the past couple of years: - Laxton Bridleway 2 <http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/293561685>. This is clearly signed from the road, but the line across crops/ploughed field is never used, probably because there is a ditch or drain at the road end. Andy (SomeoneElse) has also surveyed this path from the current path in use which skirts the edge of the wood. - Scalford Footpath E27 <http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/466045433>. There is a set-aside strip around the field and this is used in lieu of the official line. - Scalford Footpath F22 <http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/465782029>. The official line of this path is built over. There are no traces of the path at it's northern end, but it obviously should start from a stile which is overgrown by a couple of feet of hawthorn. When I enquired about this path, the council wrote back "Unfortunately the farm buildings obstructing the Footpath have been there for many years. This is obviously not something the County Council condones but fortunately Footpaths F24 and F22 do provide alternative access and therefore the problems with F23 take a low priority." - Stanley Footpath 13 & Dale Abbey Footpaths 26 & 28 <http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/52.95054/-1.37437&layers=D> . Two fields with a couple of examples of official lines crossing the field diagonally and being replaced on the ground by paths closer to the edges of the field (and probably reflecting better the actual desire lines of regular walkers). In most cases the tagging is fairly ad hoc to meet the situation that I encounter. As I am seeing more examples I am adding more information in the form of additional tags, and in the process being more consistent. In general I only add the official lines when there is adequate information on the ground to identify them. For instance there are no traces of Trowell FP 16 on the ground, so I have not added anything to OSM <http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.9584/-1.2531>. There is a thread from earlier this year discussing a similar issue. Regards, Jerry PS. Apologies for accidentally sending a near-blank message On 29 September 2017 at 14:35, Bob Hawkins <bobhawk...@waitrose.com> wrote: > I should be interested to learn the general consensus regarding definitive > alignments of Public Rights of Way and paths actually walked, and whether > contributors have similar predicaments to mine. I have two cases in > Shiplake, Oxfordshire: > 1. Shiplake FP 37 Footpath #528052488 > <http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/528052488> Changeset #52405541 > <http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52405541> > I had labelled the straight line path to the kissing gate before the > railway as Shiplake FP 37, originally. Since devoting my time to adding > PRoW information in the Oxfordshire Chilterns and using Oxfordshire County > Council’s Countryside Access Map, I have become aware of official path > alignments. I pondered long and hard over this issue. I decided, finally, > that it would be incorrect to label the straight line to the kissing gate > before the railway as footpath 37, although this is the path used for a > long time, and it makes no sense to walk the official alignment in an open, > grassed field. There has been nothing official to change its alignment, as > far as I am aware, however. I felt the best solution was to map footpath > 37 as the Countryside Access Map shows, label it as such, and re-label the > straight line as foot=yes, highway=footway alone. Should anything arise to > prevent that, it can be removed instantly without affecting anything else. > 2. Shiplake FP 10 Footpath #23639524 > <http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23639524> Changeset #52419186 > <http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52419186> > The opposite applies to footpath 10: walkers in this case take the > right-angled fence line from the stile (at the junction with Shiplake FP > 11) towards Plough Lane while the Countryside Access Map shows footpath 10 > crossing the field diagonally from a point before the stile. This has the > effect of labelling the short section immediately before the stile wrongly > as footpath 10 when it should be footpath 11. I plan to visit the site and > alter OSM with the same attitude as for footpath 37. > With regards > Bob Hawkins > > > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > <#m_5279560482354191821_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
