The Barf route case was discussed extensively at the time. It's one reason why Andy's useful maps has an overlay for such ways, but does not show them automatically.
I wrote a couple of diary entries about identifying paths with steep sections: * https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SK53/diary/400702 * https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SK53/diary/400712 There were many interesting posts on Mastodon, especially mastodon.scot, from experienced mountain leaders. Not only about the specific Lakeland cases (not just Barf), but also general observations about OSM tagging and cartography. These were quite difficult to discover at the time because they weren't always replicated to the OSM Mastodon instance. On the original question. Our usual advice to landowners is that paths visible on imagery will be re-added if removed, and that visible notices regarding privacy etc. are more useful where they don't want members of the public such paths. This isn't the case here. The way has been retained, but access tags added, which at least at one time reflected on-the-ground notices. Clearly the National Trust's intent is that the line of this path should disappear as it is allowed to recover. We know that there are other, more problematic, paths on the National Trust's estate. These are mainly public rights of way which are either eroded or pass through delicate ecosystems (rare plants, ground nesting birds etc). AFAIK there is nearly always a nearby alternative path, and often easier to follow. I don't know what their current standard is for tagging such paths. However, they have been engaging with OSM, mainly through OSM-UK, for well over 6 years. They presented their initial plans at SotM-19 in Heidelberg. Roll-out was hampered by Covid-19, which was a shame. John Stanworth and I attended an early event organised by the NT GIS team for NT volunteers and rangers at Clumber Park about 6 years ago. I suspect that there will be scope in the future for active mappers to help rangers and volunteers where there's a lot of NT land local to them. Jerry On Mon, 17 Nov 2025, 09:59 Chris Hodges, <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 16/11/2025 23:26, Steven Hirschorn wrote: > > > > Wasn't there a post in the recent past about someone following a path > > in OSM which didn't technically exist on the ground and getting into > > trouble? > > > I think you might be referring to this case: > > https://www.thegreatoutdoorsmag.com/news/concerns-raised-over-crowdsourced-maps-used-by-popular-hiking-apps/ > in the Lake District? Here's a write-up of the route itself: > https://www.lakelandwalkingtales.co.uk/bishop-of-barf/. That does exist > on the ground but you wouldn't want to try and follow it in the dark, or > use it as a shortcut descent, which was the problem - apparently the > route was tagged with a suitable sac_scale but that's not displayed > (clearly) in most renders > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
