This page shows a map and table of the Public Rights of Way (Public Footpaths, Bridleways, Restricted Byways, and Byways Open to All Traffic) in the parish/area of Aylsham, in the district of Broadland, in the county of Norfolk. Data from the Surveying Authority (Norfolk County Council) is compared with the data in OpenStreetMap. (more information)
OSM Map | Definitive Statement | PRoW GIS Data (GeoJSON) | OSM Highways (GeoJSON)
| No. | Type | DS | LGIS | LOSM | ΔL/L | MS | LE | AE | Z | OT | DM | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | FP | ✓ | 24 | 33 | +37.5% | 4 | 6y | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 3 | FP | ✓ | 764 | 546 | −28.5% | 2 | 6y | MZ | OT | TG22NW | ||
| 4 | FP | ✓ | 154 | 162 | +5.2% | 4 | 6y | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 5 | FP | ✓ | 87 | 90 | +3.4% | 4 | 6y | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 6 | FP | ✓ | 255 | 259 | +1.6% | 4 | 6y | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 7 | FP | ✓ | 254 | 203 | −20.1% | 3 | 5w | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 8 | RB | ✓ | 609 | 620 | +1.8% | 4 | 5w | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 9 | FP | ✓ | 226 | 223 | −1.3% | 4 | 2w | MZ | OT | TG12NE | Route diverted around farmyard; order confirmed 2022-09. See https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/926782/row_3238952_od_.pdf | |
| 10 | FP | ✓ | 358 | 367 | +2.5% | 4 | 5w | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 11 | FP | ✓ | 99 | 100 | +1.0% | 4 | 18m | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 12 | FP | ✓ | 78 | 74 | −5.1% | 4 | 18m | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 13 | FP | ✓ | 92 | 92 | +0.0% | 4 | 5y | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 14 | RB | ✓ | 143 | 149 | +4.2% | 4 | 4m | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 15 | FP | ✓ | 87 | 94 | +8.0% | 4 | 4m | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 16 | FP | ✓ | 220 | 235 | +6.8% | 4 | 6y | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 17 | RB | ✓ | 87 | 90 | +3.4% | 4 | 4m | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 18 | FP | ✓ | 24 | 28 | +16.7% | 4 | 4m | MZ | OT | TG12NE | Route also recorded as Adopted Footway 5F161. | |
| 19 | FP | ✓ | 760 | 758 | −0.3% | 4 | 6y | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 20 | RB | ✓ | 564 | 566 | +0.4% | 4 | 6y | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 21 | RB | ✓ | 1364 | 1384 | +1.5% | 4 | 6y | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 22 | FP | ✓ | 845 | 850 | +0.6% | 4 | 6y | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 23 | FP | ✓ | 725 | 738 | +1.8% | 4 | 6y | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 24 | BR | ✓ | 517 | 466 | −9.9% | 3 | 6y | MZ | OT | TG12NE | O May be obstructed making equestrian / bicycle use difficult. | |
| 25 | RB | ✓ | 281 | 299 | +6.4% | 4 | 6y | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 26 | FP | ✓ | 158 | 158 | +0.0% | 4 | 6y | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 27 | FP | ✓ | 608 | 606 | −0.3% | 4 | 6y | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 28 | RB | ✓ | — | 0 | — | 0 | OT | D Listed as RB in Statement, but missing from GIS Data. Doesn't appear on Definitive Map, and description appears to pre-date 1991 modification to FP 6. Was it removed at the same time? Regardless, the route is currently a Public Highway: U57205 The Meadows. | ||||
| 29 | FP | ✓ | 76 | 0 | — | 0 | 6y | MZ | OT | TG22NW | ||
| 30 | FP | ✓ | — | 0 | — | — | OT | D Appears in Statement, but description is a duplicate of FP6. No FP 30 in GIS data, and unclear if this relates to the BR 30 that is there. | ||||
| 30 | BR | ✕ | 855 | 869 | +1.6% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | TG22NW | D Line recorded in GIS data from Abbots Lane to the junction of Church Lane and the A140. This is also present on the Definitive Map, although in the modifications section there's a note saying BR 30 was deleted in 1991-09. No Statement for this route, though there is an entry for an FP 30. | |
| 31 | FP | ✓ | 193 | 208 | +7.8% | 4 | 6y | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 32 | FP | ✓ | 117 | 135 | +15.4% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | TG12NE | ||
| 33 | BR | ✓ | 21 | 26 | +23.8% | 4 | 18m | MZ | OT | TG22NW | ||
| 34 | BR | ✓ | 32 | 38 | +18.8% | 4 | 18m | MZ | OT | TG22NW | ||
| Totals | 10677 | 10466 | 98.0% | |||||||||
Table Details: To be counted in the table above, OSM ways need to be tagged with an appropriate designation=* tag (one of public_footpath, public_bridleway, restricted_byway, byway_open_to_all_traffic) and the relevant prow_ref=* tag (in the form 'Aylsham XX 12a', where XX is one of FP, BR, RB, BY; and 12 is the route number, and a is an optional suffix letter). The Mapping Status values in the table are: −1 Route should not exist; 0 Unverified; 1 Un-mapped; 2 Partially mapped; 3 Complete, but with significant deviation from definitive line; 4 Complete; 5 Complete, with adjacent field boundaries and stiles, gates etc. These values are manually maintained, so my not be up to date.
Map Details: On the map, the Yellow (FP), Blue (BR), Magenta (RB) and Red (BY) lines are Rights of Way from official Council data from 2022‑12‑13, licensed under the Open Government Licence (v3) (full copyright details). Rights of Way with mapping status 4 and 5 are shown with thin lines, others are show with thick lines. The Green lines are different Highways from OSM: Dark Green for unclassified Highways, Blue-Green for Public Cycleways, and Yellow-Green for Adopted Footways. Click on any of these lines for more information. The black lines are approximate modern parish boundaries, constructed by simplifying the polygons in OS Boundary Line. The underlying mapping is OSM Carto (key). Click inside another parish for a link to switch to that parish.
Use of data in OSM: The Rights of Way GIS data shown on the map above is suitably licenced to be used in OpenStreetMap. If doing so, please use the source tag norfolk_county_council_prow_gis_data. But please do not map Rights of Way just from this data; it is important that OSM reflects what is on the ground as well. Official Rights of Way are not always usable on the ground, and the paths on the ground do not always follow the Definitive Line. The PRoW GIS data (and Definitive Statements, where available and suitably licenced) should be used primarily to add appropriate PRoW tags to ways that have already been mapped from other sources such as aerial imagery (where paths and tracks can clearly been seen) or ground surveys.
OSM ways found in or near the parish with incomplete or contradictory designation=* or prow_ref=* tags. Further details.
| Way ID | Issue | prow_ref | designation | LOSM | OSM Note Tag | OSM Fixme Tag | JRC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 112168071 | Missing prow_ref | public_footpath | 168 m | Designation as RoW by virtue of the Weavers Way footpath waymarks. I forget now if it was NCC or Blickling Estate that created this path but it was created for walking. Route appears on NCC Trails map. | Check designation -- route does not appear in NCC PRoW GIS data | J+ | |
| 116792216 | Missing prow_ref | public_footpath | 451 m | Check designation -- route does not appear in NCC PRoW GIS data | J+ | ||
| 152909708 | Missing prow_ref | public_footpath | 777 m | J+ | |||
| 364632970 | Missing prow_ref | public_footpath | 41 m | Check designation -- route does not appear in NCC PRoW GIS data | J+ | ||
| 364632988 | Missing prow_ref | public_footpath | 8 m | Designation as RoW by virtue of the Weavers Way footpath waymarks. I forget now if it was NCC or Blickling Estate that created this path but it was created for walking. | Check designation -- route does not appear in NCC PRoW GIS data | J+ | |
| 364632990 | Missing prow_ref | public_footpath | 23 m | Designation as RoW by virtue of the Weavers Way footpath waymarks. I forget now if it was NCC or Blickling Estate that created this path but it was created for walking. Route appears on NCC Trails map. | Check designation -- route does not appear in NCC PRoW GIS data | J+ | |
| 447867897 | Missing prow_ref | public_footpath | 67 m | Check designation -- route does not appear in NCC PRoW GIS data | J+ | ||
| 447867901 | Missing prow_ref | public_footpath | 107 m | Designation as RoW by virtue of the Weavers Way footpath waymarks. I forget now if it was NCC or Blickling Estate that created this path but it was created for walking. | Check designation -- route does not appear in NCC PRoW GIS data | J+ | |
| 847183924 | Missing prow_ref | public_footpath | 20 m | Designation as RoW by virtue of the Weavers Way footpath waymarks. I forget now if it was NCC or Blickling Estate that created this path but it was created for walking. Route appears on NCC Trails map. | Check designation -- route does not appear in NCC PRoW GIS data | J+ |
OSM ways with missing or inconsistent modal access tags are listed below. The classes of Public Rights of Way and Highways included on the map are checked, but Rights of Way with other tagging issues already listed above are excluded. Further details.