OpenStreetMap
If I can open a diary following on from that by Quichina early this week.
The Definitive Map (DM) is developed and maintained by the county councils it is essentially a public document, however the background is ( historically and at present ) an Ordnance Survey production (arguably stolen from the public as most of the content is derived from planning documents held again by the local authorities - and yes, paid for by your council tax).
I do not see a problem with homework, using reference (but not adherence) to the DMs, and then intensive groundwork to fix the route.
As for using way-marking on paths, lol, for most of the ROW I am familiar with, you are lucky to see a post at either end of the track, the route is often 2m deep in bracken and I have considered a scythe (but a night in the cell could be tedious).
As for the actual right of way on the ground, it can be even more confusing, for instance, where a drive to a farm or house is evident, the DM may in some instances show the ROW off to the side, in the field, hence, technically it is trespass to use the gravel or tarmac here, but how obvious is this ?
Many moorland tracks (away from the National Parks) are quite literally undetectable, very subtle clues are required to navigate these over many miles of featureless terrain. Some routes I take appear not to have had any significant use in years.
The ROWs were developed in 1949 and were delegated to Parish Councils by the County Councils. Back then there were many routes across rural parishes that certain landowners did not record onto the DMs either because the route appeared duplicate or perhaps passed too close to Squire so-and-so's house. It is my understanding that some councils took the task more seriously than others - one or two recorded ROW actually need ropes to religously follow !
However a ROW is not actually physical, it is a legal definition and all that that implies, therefore just as you can't take what the newspapers or the 'bloke in the pub' says is a law, you can't take what they say is a ROW. The only way to determine this is by reference to the DM.
If the community thinks, particularly the legal guys, that there is anything wrong with my approach then I would argue that the tag 'public-footpath', is actually a misnomer in OSM, and cannot be recorded as to reiterate, the only way of determining a ROW is by reference to the DM.
My personal interest in OSM is this very topic, it is facinating to retrace 'old ways', (that muddy track was actually the A6 300 years ago).
I go to great lengths to record accurate tracks, it is satisfying and frustrating at the same time.
It would be very informative for a legal guy to once and for all clarify the exact status of the information on the DM.
Discussion
Comment from davidearl on 5 September 2009 at 10:31
The fact that something is a public document, or prepared using public funds, does not make it not subject to copyright. The local authority has Database Copyright in this information (though they may be more persuadable than OS to let us use their info under the terms of the OSM license), as well as the OS's copyright on the map. I don't think anyone here can give a definitive answer - it would need a test case in court. But copying anything off an OS map, whatever your opinion of it, must be considered a potential copyright issue and therefore not respecting principle of keeping OSM squeaky clean so far as sources are concerned. Frustrating perhaps, but that's why OSM exists in the first place.
Comment from barrieu on 5 September 2009 at 10:56
David, in principle I totally agree, you are correct about the copyrights.
To clarify, I do not advocate 'copying', all my work is done from GPS tracks or occasionally line of sight so all I submit to OSM is actually from my own eyes, feet or wheels.
However the point I am making is that without 'glancing reference' to the Definitive Map (not the OS map), no one can definitively state that any ROW in England and Wales is actually a legal right of way, therefore in this capacity, any tagging, stating or inferring its legal status in OSM is erroneous.
Comment from antonys on 5 September 2009 at 11:00
Another tack here is to approach local authorities directly and ask permission to use the DM itself for OSM purposes. I am doing this with my own authority - it seems that have a paper DM dating which is up to date to 1956 (!), and an internal 'source map' on the council intranet which is much more current. It seems reasonable that this should be made available to the public in some way, but the question is whether they would do so, and if so with what restrictions. I will post an update with the outcome, but in the meantime does anyone else have experience of this process?
Comment from chillly on 5 September 2009 at 11:10
antonys: If the internal map is based on an OS map, OS will claim copyright. I resent this, but without a court case (which OSM cannot afford) to decide if this is a justified claim we must accept it.
I think it is a reasonable assumption that if a council (who maintain the DM) puts up a sign that says 'Public Footpath', pointing along a path, then that path is public footpath.
Comment from barrieu on 5 September 2009 at 11:29
Chilly, again this is probably true with respect to copyright but if there are say two signs say 8 miles apart and the track is either not visible on the ground or there are numerous unofficial parallel tracks how can we define which is the actual ROW ?
I think we have two issues here, the first relates to copyright, and the second relates to how we can tag something relating to a legal concept because the actual ROW is not visible on the ground, only the tracks left by decades of usage, which may have no relation to the legal ROW.
I guess its like trying to route shipping lanes when there are no ships around.
Comment from chillly on 5 September 2009 at 12:12
barrieu: The councils in England have a legal obligation to sign public rights of way and maintain access to them. Two signs, many miles apart with alternate routes is not adequate. If you have problems contact your council to remind them of their obligations. Also, try asking them (under the Freedom of Information Act) for records of their maintenance of footpath signs and access. This will then show if they are doing as they should. Imaginative use of the FoIA seems to be very effective.
Comment from SK53 on 5 September 2009 at 13:51
many interesting points. Here's a few of my thoughts:
Definitive map can't be the database because of these legal requirements (from the Ramblers website): "Definitive maps are public documents and must be available for the public to view at surveying authorities' offices during normal office hours. There is no charge for viewing a definitive map, but authorities may charge a reasonable amount for photocopying. Some authorities have created online versions of their definitive map." Most of the one's I've seen have been hardcopy print-out from large scale OSGB mapping.
More interesting for us are the statements. These often contain lots of information and very little OSGB stuff, usually just Grid References. If these could be released under suitable licensing terms, perhaps with the GRs 'redacted' it would be very helpful.
NPE paths and tracks are more useful than not. Clearly around towns they will have been obliterated by housing, but more often than not there will be little alleys/ginnels/twitchells (select local term of choice) which maintain the rough line of the old path. Where I've mapped NPE paths I usually don't connect them to other ways, but when I pass a footpath/bridleway sign and one is marked then I modify the original NPE one accordingly. Even better I walk some of them in which case I replace the NPE one entirely.
Even older maps are useful. The public footpath represented by a short footway and Lenton Road here> is under threat as the private estate which it runs through have gated the W end. However a map of 1835 (Sanderson's 20 Miles around Mansfield) shows this route as a road.
There are many PROWs which no longer adhere to the route as described in the paperwork. It is only when the landowner wants to make changes that the council may insist on restoration to the legal route (sometimes neither in the landowners or walkers interest).
OSM is surely mainly about mapping what's there. Sorting out the legal status of paths should be a secondary objective. In cities like Nottingham which didn't have to maintain a definitive map, and are only starting to notify PROWs now under
Comment from RichardB on 5 September 2009 at 21:36
> The only way to determine this is by reference to the DM.
Not really. As someone said above. If the council puts up a sign saying "public footpath" then we can infer that it is a legal right of way on foot.
It's completely analogous to how we collect road names. We don't copy road names from an official list or official map. We do so from the road signs that the council puts up, which is meant to reflect this list.
It's of course possible that a sign might be wrong (particularly in the spelling of road signs etc.) - but we should just map what is actually on the signs - whether something says "public footpath" or Acacia Avenue etc.
Comment from barrieu on 6 September 2009 at 07:44
I guess that's fine if all we wish to plot are the locations of the signs but what of the actual route on the ground between the signs, how do we know if any particular set of footprints are the legal "public footpath".
I don't believe it is analogous to road signs it is analogous to administrative boundaries which for the most part do not have a definite material presence on the ground without prior knowledge.
Comment from chillly on 6 September 2009 at 11:07
barrieu: You're ignoring the fact that councils have an obligation to sign public rights of way. That doesn't mean a sign at each end of a route with miles of unsigned bits between, but they must put up markers or signs at every point there is a reasonable choice. East Riding of Yorkshire council do this fairly well and respond to emails asking for signs to be repaired, much to the annoyance of a few land owners. Putting pressure on a council is no harder than sending an email, though they may need more than that in the end. The FoIA allows anyone to ask questions about the records that councils hold, so ask them (by email) what records they hold about maintaining PRoW signs and access. They have 20 working days to respond, after which you then have astick to beat them with if they are not adequately maintaining the signage and access. Try it. It could be the way to get exactly what you want.
Comment from RichardB on 6 September 2009 at 11:27
There are usually waymark arrows, which gives you a direction to travel, and stiles/gates along the route. If there aren't any of these, and the route is lightly travelled such that there is no eroded trail at all, then ask the council to erect more signs/waymarks. They should do this if it's impossible to follow otherwise.
If there are waymarks, then follow them - again it can be inferred that if the council put the waymarks pointing in a specific direction, then that direction is correct.
If following the route is very difficult, then just do the best you can. If you are slightly out from the official route, then it's not the end of the world, particularly if the route you are following is the way everyone else goes (even if not the 'official' route).
To give yourself the best chance of finding the correct route;
When about to enter a new field, check for a waymark arrow on the stile or gate etc. Stop and look in the direction the waymark arrow is pointing. In the distance, you might be able to spot a post with a waymark arrow, or a 'fingerpost' sign-post or another stile or gate which is your exit point from the new field.
If so, then it's a reasonable assumption - in the absence of any other evidence - that the correct route might be a straight line between where you are and this waymark/post/stile/gate etc. in the distance.
When you reach this feature - have a look at the opposite side of it for a waymark arrow pointing back towards where you've just come from. Check the route you've walked matches the direction on the arrow.
Check the lie of the land; sometimes footpaths follow old trackways which might be slightly raised - or indeed lowered - above/below the level of the surrounding land. Follow this route rather than a straight line in this instance.
Many footpaths follow field boundaries - if your waymark arrow points you almost straight away towards a hedge or fence, then follow the hedge/fence until you reach a field exit, or another sign telling you not to.
Again, if you're slightly out, then it's not normally a problem. There are countless roads just traced from NPE which could be a hundred metres out or more.
Comment from RichardB on 6 September 2009 at 11:34
And whilst I'm here, I asked Cheshire East to clarify the correct direction of a route as it was very unclear. They have an online footpath problem reporting page on their website. I imagine many councils have something similar. I got an e-mail back within a couple of days saying someone had investigated and agreed with me. I went back that way not long ago and there were new signs put up - and they'd also fixed a stile nearby as well.
Comment from robert on 6 September 2009 at 11:34
"the route is often 2m deep in bracken and I have considered a scythe (but a night in the cell could be tedious)."
To reiterate what chillly has been saying, I'm pretty sure councils have a duty to maintain their rights of way. In this case, complaints should be made.
Comment from Electric Monk on 28 September 2009 at 08:56
Just to clarify: councils have a duty to maintain the *signs* on a right of way. The landowner has a duty to maintain the right of way itself and any gates/stiles on it, so if it's overgrown, the landowner should be clearing it. However, if you complain to the local council, they will contact the landowner - usually a more productive method than trying to contact the landowner yourself.
The issue over copyright all revolves around the words "derived data". Under the Mapping Services Agreement that councils sign with OS, any data set created by reference to an OS base map is derived data, and the OS retains certain rights over that data. A council could not "give" its ROW data to OSM: it can only licence its use under restrictive terms determined by the OS. The OSM Creative Commons licence would conflict with these terms.
(I work for a council, though not in the Rights of Way section.)
Comment from barrieu on 29 September 2009 at 19:27
EM, thank-you for your comment and you are totally correct, councils do have the obligation to maintain RoW, but it is at the bottom of their priority lists, clearing bracken three times a year is un-practical, and personally, I quite enjoy the rougher tracks. I don't wish to complain to the council or anyone else, I'd rather just be out in the country.
My point with regard to the condition of the routes in relation to making accurate guesses at the legal rights of way, is simply that when navigating in those conditions it is almost impossible to confirm that you are on the 'correct' path - if you can't see further than a few feet you can't make good navigational judgements - you won't be "lost", just unsure whether the route you are taking is the RoW or a sheep-track.
After considering the comments made to the diary entry, it seems that the use of Public Footpath / Bridleway tags by OSM in England and Wales must be a misnomer, as it cannot be confirmed on the ground by survey (except by elaborate guesswork and inference) and if any reference is made to the Definitive Map it becomes derived data.
My personal opinion is that the OSM should be as accurate as practically possible it is therefore untenable that 'guesses' and 'reasonable assumptions' be used as the basis of plotting what after all are legally defined effects, I'm sure that it would not be good form, to for instance, 'guess' at the locations of international boundaries but that is exactly the same rational as for RoW across more remote regions.
In many of the moorland areas I frequent, I could criss-cross in all manner of directions, always following what look like the form and flow of the land and judging the shades of grasses, in an attempt to find the 'real route', but these would all be assumptions on my part and could never be relied on to be the RoW I seek.
After saying all that, I guess I should leave it each individual to deduce the accuracies of what are tagged as Public Rights of Way on OSM, but my own view is that the RoWs are very important, their nuances are historical and only quirks of fate prevented them, rather than their parallel neighbours from becoming modern roads so as such these details are worthy of the utmost respect.