Hi ChrispByNature,

The paths added on Cley Hill were removed in consultation with NT Rangers and Archaeologists.

Although the area is designated as open access under CRoW some "paths" on the ground were removed from OSM as they are causing damage to the Scheduled Monument. For instance, a path is now mapped over the burial mound (Way: 1210053195 | OpenStreetMap). The recommended route to the top was maintained. Rather than having paths mapped, the archaeologists on site felt it better to promote the area of open access to distribute foot traffic. We had a similar discussion here regarding paths at Avebury: changeset/135933857#map=14/51.4240/-1.8197

Hi Mark, Thanks for your comment and apologies for the late response.

The seasonally mown areas are temporary and can change location to reduce erosion impacts on the archaeology below, and they sit within wider areas of permissive open access, which is why we have chosen to map them in this way. We have no intention of closing this area of permissive open access. Should there be changes to any areas, we would update our website and add the appropriate signage. The website will be changed in time as part of the digital improvements in the Paths & Trails Programme, and signage will be reviewed in the Waymarking and Navigation workstream. I appreciate that this is a niche mapping scenario, however we are trying to exercise some caution around a site with such high sensitivities.

Hi, thanks for bringing this mistake to my attention. I've amended the path now.

Thanks for your comment. This way is on an area of land that has been recently acquired by the National Trust from the local council. As part of the acquisition, the NT inherited the existing access permissions and signage from the council, along with the responsibility for the path surface maintenance, benches, and rescue cabinets. The bins which are just on the margins of NT land are the responsibility of the council.

The B&NES PRoW Team and our local Estate Manager have confirmed with us that this cycleway is permissive on foot and by bicycle, and not a designated right of way. This includes the bridge over the Avon which was not included in the Trust’s acquisition. Though we can appreciate the existing signage on this way does not clearly denote that this way is permissive, we have planned works on waymarking and navigation as part of our national Paths & Trails programme and have raised this to the manager responsible for this workstream. We are not looking to remove access, rather, we want to keep it open on a permissive basis, as this reflects the legal access rights.

Thanks for pointing out the naming of Byway 5 as "The Ridgeway". This was my error and I've fixed it now.

Hi Mikey Co. Waden Hill, which overlooks Silbury Hill, is also permissive open access, with signage on the ground to explain this and to encourage visitors to move freely across the fields to distribute foot traffic.

NB: We have had one case near Scafell Pike that was resolved by retaining the path and using the disused:highway tag. This was deemed as the most appropriate option, given we do not have the legal right to prevent access on CROW land. At Stonehenge / Avebury WHS, access permissions differ (ie. permissive NT Open Access, we have the legal right to close routes) and it was felt that the risk to the WHS / Scheduled Monument outweighs the risk of routes being remapped.

Hi, Thanks for your quick response. We have discussed the possibility of retaining paths and using the access=no, highway=no, disused:highway and abandoned:highway tags to reflect the fact that routes may still exist on the ground. However, such tags have minimal / low usage in OSM, are not rendered by routing engines, or are contentious. As these paths are on NT open access land, it was felt that access=no (which denotes the legal right) would not be reflective of our position. If there is a clear vote on which tags would be appropriate in this scenario, we are happy to take guidance from members of the OSM community. However, we felt that at this stage, removing the ways and monitoring the area for changes would be the best approach.
Permissive access is still provided in and around West Kennet Avenue, however rather than having one permissive path the archaeologists on site have decided to promote an area of open access to distribute foot traffic.

Hi! Thank you for your comment. Having spoken at length with the ranger team and archaeologists on site, we have opted to delete some paths in this area as these routes are causing damage to the Scheduled Ancient Monument / World Heritage
Site (WHS). The National Trust have a duty of care to conserve these features, and so work is being done in this area to guide visitors towards the paths retained in OSM, or to disperse on areas of permissive open access (such as those in the Stonehenge & Avebury WHS), thereby reducing foot traffic that is causing damage. Some of the ways that have been removed are erosion features / foot damage and so it was deemed appropriate to remove these as paths in OSM. We have sought to retain all public rights of way, and non-definitive routes that are not causing damage on site. The data in OSM will form the basis for a number of workstreams under the National Trust's Paths & Trails Programme, including a digital workstream, which will seek to update the website and the presentation of paths on our digital platforms.

As ever, we are open to discussion and keen to utilise the wealth of knowledge in OSM to help us capture path data. Particularly in niche scenarios, such as routes that intersect scheduled monuments / world heritage sites as well as on access land land.

Thanks very much for spotting these, I've gone back and amended now :)

Apologies Bernard I mistakenly thought you were referring to where the minor road fords the East Water and the adjacent bridge, further to the south. I've fixed the offending ford/bridge and checked the crossings of the entire stream.
Best wishes,
Hugh

Hi Bernard,
Thanks for pointing this out. The single track road fords through the stream and there is a footbridge next to this.
Best wishes,
Hugh

Thanks very much for sorting Bernard.

Hi @gurglypipe

Thanks very much for the constructive comments! The mural has been painted over - I'll be sure to add more context in my future changeset comments :)