| Note | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Event | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3791374 | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | opened | ianc ♦33 | Although part of the right of way, this is a steep and usually slippery section that drops straight onto Yardley Road, which as no pavements. Use the new paths to the right instead. Not sure how to tag this appropriately. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | eteb3 ♦1,595 | Thanks. By the "new paths" do you mean the longish path running along the N edge of the detention pond, here? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1005012470/history Or a shorter run that makes the descent less steep, perhaps through the near-gap in the trees? In any case, you can add the non-PrOW path as a highway=footway and that will be fine. Just make sure it's not tagged foot=designated (unless these alternative paths are actually signed for pedestrians). You can also opt for highway=path + path=informal + foot=yes That's slightly controversial: some people prefer highway=footway at all times; but I think it captures the nuance of "everyone hacks this way and there's a trail on the ground" rather than "someone planned this for pedestrians" | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | ianc ♦33 | There is no safe way onto Yardley Road here. This stretch of road is in a cutting about 10ft vertically, with a the remains of a dismantled railway bridge nearby. Even when dry it is steep (c50 degrees) and hard to maintain footing (I tried once - not doing that again). 30mph road here with NO pavement. It is MUCH steeper than Streetview makes it look. The new path to the right was constructed as part of the housing development. It has a stable surface (a bit like hoggin/ MOT Type 1, not gravel) and is completely safe, leading to a safe crossing spot with a 20mph limit. It is now part of the Town Council's Olney Circular Walk (see the relation) but is not otherwise designated. It's more than informal, I'd say, so I'd be fine with Highway=footway (yeah, I've seen the "footway debate" - when people want to be boneheaded they sure do commit.) | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | eteb3 ♦1,595 | Thanks for all that. Does this screenshot show the way down, just behind the "bend coming up" chevrons as you head out of the village? I can see a trampled section of grass: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.1667008&lng=-0.7108177999999725&z=17&pKey=766717025982736&focus=photo&x=0.48596633506574477&y=0.6160664259632663&zoom=0 My feeling is that, in any case, the map should tag the hazards rather than exclude the route as impassable. Eg, someone might be glad to get *up* the slope and away from the road. Or be wanting to get from the path to turn left out of the village, and unwilling to do the detour to the safer crossing point. I'll tag the bridge abutments (I think they're called: retaining walls visible on Mapillary) and the embankment; will also tag the incline on the way itself Unless it's literally impassable (eg, wall to climb) I feel it should be foot=yes: I can't point to policy, but I think we should tag the features and let map users make their own risk choices. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | eteb3 ♦1,595 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/188390050 Would you like to check how far the embankment runs? From Lidar and Mapillary I make it from the old railway to just before the 20mph sign. | |
| 3519640 | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | opened | ianc ♦33 | PRoW here is on both Northnorthants GIS and on OS, but is impassable here (or at least not easily or wisely passable).The route to the north is signposted and seems properly maintained, but in some aerial imagery both paths are clearly visible as having been market out by farmers. |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | commented | ianc ♦33 | *marked out. Duh. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | eteb3 ♦1,595 | Can you say more about why it's impassable? If only for speed of traffic I'd say it should remain in the map as is. If there is, for example, a central reservation to climb over, that could / should be mapped. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | ianc ♦33 | It is completely blocked by a ditch, a fence and a crash barrier similar to those used on central reservations. Visibility is also restricted on a 60mph road, compared to the path slightly to the north (The path to the north has a gap in that barrier and a properly constructed kissing gate and superior visibility.) None of that makes the presence of the PRoW illegal, just unusable and unsafe. | |
| 5237940 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | TheUKHighStreet ♦8,652 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/403310735 Is this a Welcome? https://southern.coop/store-locator/l/-/milton-keynes/127-downs-barn-boulevard/4700864 |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | ianc ♦33 | Can't see any evidence that it isn't, but all these Londis/ Budgens/ McColls/ Morrison Locals change identities so often it will probably need a visit to confirm. | |
| 4775226 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | DorneyLake123 ♦6,074 | hospital missing amenity / healthcare tags? |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | ianc ♦33 | ||
| 5408805 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | --- | This is not a footpath, please remove. This is causing trespassing issues |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | eteb3 ♦1,595 | Thank you, I've initiated a discussion on the relevant edit. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | ianc ♦33 | No, that does not appear to be a right of way. Can't recall how that happened, but I was doing a lot of tagging around here back then. Somewhere in the back of my mind is the idea I found a fair few fictional paths that weren't supported by any evidence, or were so crudely drawn as to be wildly inaccurate. I suspect I may have inadvertently shift-clicked this one when tagging. The line of the path to the left doesn't look right either. It's not at all obvious there is even a path there. Once I have sent this I am minded to delete it altogether. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | ianc ♦33 | ||
| 5408801 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | --- | This is not a footpath. Please remove this as it is causing significant issues with tresspassing |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | eteb3 ♦1,595 | Thank you, I've initiated a discussion on the relevant edit. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | ianc ♦33 | This one is a bit different. This isn't the public footpath route, but according to Bedford's PRoW map Jack's Lane (tagged as private) IS part of Turvey FP A6/ USRN: 27351085 | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | ianc ♦33 | PS- Jack's Lane also shown a Public FP on OS. | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | eteb3 ♦1,595 | Thanks. So probably we should (assuming your source is OdBLable) EITHER 1 / route the PROW tagging correctly down Jack's Lane AND 2/ delete this path OR 2 / keep this path AND 3/ remove the PROW tagging Probably best to wait for Andy Mackay's input (I've messaaged) bc he added it and his trace is still there as a walkable route? | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | ianc ♦33 | I would lean towards 1. I had a cheeky look at Streetview, and the road is drivable (or was on 2010) but at about the point where the mapped path deviates from Jacks Lane there is a sign that say Private Road and Footpath. That is where Bedford says the RoW begins (FP A6). BUT there's an opening to the right and I would lay any money that's what Andy followed. But the Bedford online PRoW Map shows the path Turvey A6 running from Turvey, along Jacks Lane, before cutting across the field to bypass the farm and continuing to just before Stagsden, where it becomes Stagsden FP 23. I might try to track down the PRoW officer if I have time - there may be a dispute with a landowner. (I'm going to delete the other section - can't find any evidence that it exists) | |
| 3585660 | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | opened | ianc ♦33 | Ordnance Survey has a copyright trap bridge here |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | ceirios ♦3,914 | ok, but of course we can't map this | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | reopened | ianc ♦33 | ||
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | ianc ♦33 | Yeah, I put it as a warning for newbies. |