This was prompted somewhat by this other thread - I checked a couple of “paths on OS maps that don’t exist” to see if the LA data had been updated, and although it had, it didn’t show changes where I looked.
One example is here, where you’d need either a helicopter or be prepared to do some mountain climbing.
Should that be marked as anything to say “it’s marked as a public footpath on OS maps but there is literally no way to get from A to B”? It’s not like the (fairly common) issue in moorland where you can get across (it’s open moorland) but the trail visibility is at best low.
Edit: To clarify “on OS maps” - The OS don’t (I hope!) make these up, they take input from local authorities who got asked what should count as these in 1949 and have been reviewing and editing them since. That local authority data is (hopefully) released as OGL; the fact that the same data also appears on OS maps doesn’t mean that the original licence from the LA wasn’t compatible with OSM.
I don’t think we care (or are allowed to care) about whether is shown as a public footpath on OS Maps, but what does matter is if a route is a legal Public Right of Way. I tag impossible-to-navigate routes that are nevertheless still legal rights of way with something like
highway=no designation=public_footpath prow_ref=Bacton FP 5 foot=designated foot:physical=no note=Definitive Line of Public Footpath, but inaccessibly due to coastal erosion
The highway=no is to confirm it’s definitely not a highway, and to hopefully prevent any drive-by mappers adding a different highway=* value. The designation and prow_ref tags should be self-explanatory. foot=* represents the legal situation, so it should be yes/designated if it’s a legal right of way. But if you can’t actually use the route, foot:physical=no captures that aspect. Finally, it’s useful to add a note=* to explain the unusual tagging to other mappers.
This is terrible mapping. That example doesn’t have a primary tag. A PROW is still a legal public highway, irrelevant of whether it’s “impossible-to-navigate”.
There are adjective tags to be used to describe the physical features of a entity.
I agree. A PRoW is, by definition, definitely a highway. If it legally exists, but isn’t practically usable, then other tags should be used to indicate this.
It certainly ought to be a highway in OSM terms. However, I’m asking about ones that do not exist in any physical sense. In that example of mine near whitby above, there’s no on the ground signage and what I’d hoped would be the public footpath turned north towards Jugger Howe rather than continuing east.
Which ones do you suggest? Is is best to have highway with a value of “no, this is not physically a highway” (that approach is sometimes a bit unfairly called “troll tagging”), or some lifecycle prefix of highway, or something else?
This is my preference, e.g., disused:highway (doesn’t seem to have been used for at least a season or two and may need fairly substantial vegetation clearing) or abandoned:highway (e.g., may need earthwork to reinstate, or indeed just be re-routed, such as after a landslide or due to the meandering of a substantial river).
Other tags such as trail_visibility, obstacle, overgrowncan also be used as supplementary tagging.
I think this depends on the context. If the route is clearly no longer in use (extinguished) and just hasn’t been removed from the local authority’s data (e.g., left-over unconnected fragments, a route running through long-ago built houses and gardens, a route once on a headland and now 10ft beneath the sea) then I’d suggest not adding highway at all. But I would add the other bits of data (e.g., designation and prow_ref) for QA purposes.
But if it just does not exist physically because the local authority hasn’t installed/replaced infrastructure (signs/styles etc) and it’s not a particularly well trampled route, I’d still map that with the highway appropriate for its designation. But use trail_visibility=no or something to show that.
The “missing bridleway” here did use to exist - you can see it in this old OS map. That simply isn’t there now - see this diary entry. Even in those (pretty ideal) conditions it would have been hard going to follow the old route - and there is bridleway signage to the south, where OSM has it.
However what about this one near Whitby? That was not there in 1848. I don’t believe that it ever existed, since the terrain doesn’t support a footpath there. I’m guessing it was accidentally added by a slip of the pen (in my mind’s eye, in the back bar of the the Raven Hall Hotel just up the road).
This one feels like a lifecycle tag. It doesn’t seem like there was anything actually preventing you from using the public bridleway even if evidence on the ground was non-existent. Admittedly, it would would require a bit of guesswork and getting waist high in bracken! I imagine that bit may have been made a bit easier if you’d been riding a horse
If the local riding group started using it, the route would soon become visible again.
Possibly falls into the same category as my “fragments/houses/under the sea” examples - I wouldn’t map a highway but would probably add the designation etc key.
