You are in: Rob's OSM Stuff » UK PRoW » Progress » Norfolk » Great Yarmouth » Mapping Updates

OSM Status Updates for Great Yarmouth, Norfolk

This page lists rigths of way where the mapping status value stored in this tool appears to be inconsistent with what is mapped in OSM (and tagged with a prow_ref=* tag).

RoWs present with unmapped status set (DS imported)

No RoWs found with this issue

RoWs missing from OSM with mapped status set

No RoWs found with this issue

RoWs close to 100% length with mapped status set to incomplete

Parish Number LGIS LOSM ΔL/L MS LE Notes
Burgh Castle FP 11 280 264 −5.7% 2 2w The northern end of this route appears to be a dead end.

RoWs not close to 100% length with mapped status set to complete

Parish Number LGIS LOSM ΔL/L MS LE Notes
Ashby with Oby BR 6 53 202 +281.1% 4 2y The Statement says route is 203m long, but in GIS data it is only 53m. Definitive map shows longer route, consistent with the Statement, so presumably the GIS data is wrong.
Bradwell FP 3 548 320 −41.6% 4 6y Definitive Statement records path no 3 as part FP part BR. All recorded as BR in GIS data. Should be split into 3A and 3B.
Great Yarmouth FP 7a 449 491 +9.4% 4 4y On the Definitive Map, the routes of FP 7 and FP 7a as described in the Statement are shown as a single route labelled FP 7.

RoWs with a bounding box mismatch and a mapped status set to complete

Parish Number LGIS LOSM ΔL/L MS LE Notes
Ashby with Oby BR 6 53 202 +281.1% 4 2y The Statement says route is 203m long, but in GIS data it is only 53m. Definitive map shows longer route, consistent with the Statement, so presumably the GIS data is wrong.
Bradwell FP 3 548 320 −41.6% 4 6y Definitive Statement records path no 3 as part FP part BR. All recorded as BR in GIS data. Should be split into 3A and 3B.

RoWs outside the GIS bounding box and a mapped status set to incomplete

OSM Bounding box exceeds the GIS data bounding box by more than the buffer [dlat,dlon] = [899,512] × 10-6.

No RoWs found with this issue

Mapped RoWs flagged as not following the definitive line

Parish Number LGIS LOSM ΔL/L MS LE Notes
Ashby with Oby FP 4 1750 1688 −3.5% 3 8y
Bradwell FP 20 835 831 −0.5% 3 2y Possible obsrtuction of Definitive line around sub-station, but alternative route exists. Both Statement and GIS Data have the path going around the north and east side of the sub-station (which is probably inaccessible). But the path on the gound goes to the west and south. Definitive Map is unclear, but probably matches the GIS data.
Burgh Castle FP 3 740 712 −3.8% 3 2m
Caister-on-Sea FP 6 286 292 +2.1% 3 7y Mapped route appears to be on wrong side of old railway. It should be on the sea-ward side.
Fleggburgh FP 8 318 333 +4.7% 3 7y
Mautby FP 9 607 603 −0.7% 3 34h Mapped route doesn't quite follow the Definitive Line at the east end.
Mautby FP 14 901 902 +0.1% 3 4y Mapped route does not quite follow the Definitive Line at the SE end.
Mautby FP 16 593 595 +0.3% 3 5y Definitive Line appears to be obstructed by drainage channel, but bridge nearby provides and alternative route.
Mautby BR 17 644 626 −2.8% 3 5y Mapped route on modern track doesn't quite follow Definitive Line.
Ormesby St Margaret with Scratby FP 1 832 886 +6.5% 3 5w
Ormesby St Margaret with Scratby FP 3 310 320 +3.2% 3 6y There is a kink in Definitive Line in the GIS data near northern end of gaveyard, which is not reflected in the mapped route in OSM.
West Caister FP 2 276 307 +11.2% 3 34h

RoWs present in parishes without Definitive Statement import

No RoWs found with this issue