On Monday, 17 November 2025 11:38:08 Central European Standard Time SK53 wrote: > 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.
If it is signposted on the ground that the landowner doesn't want people to use it, but a right of way still nevertheless exists, it is then foot=discouraged Michael
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
