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 Methwold, in the district of King's Lynn & West Norfolk, 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 | BY | ✓ | 1031 | 661 | −35.9% | 2 | 6y | MZ | OT | TL79SE | ||
| 2 | FP | ✓ | 208 | 178 | −14.4% | 2 | 2y | MZ | OT | TL79SW | ||
| 3 | FP | ✓ | 306 | 60 | −80.4% | 2 | 6y | MZ | OT | TL79NW | ||
| 4 | FP | ✓ | 61 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | TL79SW | |||
| 5 | FP | ✓ | 72 | 12 | −83.3% | 2 | 2y | MZ | OT | TL79SW | ||
| 6 | FP | ✓ | 186 | 202 | +8.6% | 4 | 8y | MZ | OT | TL79SW | ||
| 7 | FP | ✓ | 466 | 123 | −73.6% | 2 | 2y | MZ | OT | TL79SW | ||
| 8 | FP | ✓ | 105 | 109 | +3.8% | 4 | 5y | MZ | OT | TL79SW | ||
| 9 | FP | ✓ | 576 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | TL79SW | |||
| 10 | FP | ✓ | 270 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | TL79SW | |||
| 11 | FP | ✓ | 233 | 30 | −87.1% | 2 | 2y | MZ | OT | TL79SW | ||
| 12 | FP | ✓ | 468 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | TL79NW | |||
| 13 | BR | ✓ | 7653 | 6083 | −20.5% | 2 | 5y | MZ | OT | TL69NE | ||
| 14 | BR | ✓ | 595 | 595 | +0.0% | 4 | 7w | MZ | OT | TL69NW | ||
| 15 | BR | ✓ | 1758 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | TL69SW | Now in Southery Parish, following boundary changes. | ||
| 16 | BR | ✓ | 978 | 303 | −69.0% | 2 | 8y | MZ | OT | TL69NW | Now in Southery Parish, following boundary changes. | |
| 17 | BR | ✓ | 1395 | 1059 | −24.1% | 2 | 6y | MZ | OT | TL69SW | ||
| 18 | BR | ✓ | 858 | 908 | +5.8% | 4 | 8y | MZ | OT | TL69SW | ||
| 19 | BR | ✓ | 1734 | 1712 | −1.3% | 4 | 3y | MZ | OT | TL69SW | Now in Southery Parish, following boundary changes. | |
| 20 | BR | ✓ | 901 | 884 | −1.9% | 4 | 8y | MZ | OT | TL69SW | ||
| 21 | BR | ✓ | 213 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | TL69SW | |||
| 22 | BR | ✓ | 358 | 361 | +0.8% | 4 | 8y | MZ | OT | TL69SW | ||
| 24 | BR | ✓ | 2140 | 1395 | −34.8% | 2 | 7y | MZ | OT | TL69SE | ||
| 25 | RB | ✓ | 465 | 478 | +2.8% | 4 | 18m | MZ | OT | TL69SE | ||
| 26 | BR | ✓ | 2995 | 3014 | +0.6% | 4 | 5y | MZ | OT | TL69SE | ||
| 27 | BR | ✓ | 2825 | 0 | — | 0 | MZ | OT | TL69SE | |||
| 28 | BR | ✓ | 3713 | 3747 | +0.9% | 4 | 19m | MZ | OT | TL69SE | ||
| 29 | FP | ✕ | 1049 | 310 | −70.4% | 2 | 7y | MZ | OT | TL69NE | D Recorded as FP in GIS data and on Definitive Map, but missing from Definitive Statement. FP 29 is referenced from the description for BR 28. | |
| 30 | FP | ✕ | — | 0 | — | 0 | OT | D Not in GIS data, Map or Statement, but an FP 30 is referenced in the statement for BR 28. | ||||
| 31 | FP | ✓ | 2623 | 2619 | −0.2% | 4 | 7y | MZ | OT | TL79SW | ||
| 32 | BR | ✓ | 854 | 868 | +1.6% | 4 | 7y | MZ | OT | TL79SW | D N Statement is not consistent with the line in the GIS data and on the Definitive Map. Presumably the route was modified when the cut-off channel was built, but the Statement wasn't updated. South-western end by the cut-off channel at TL70399414 is a dead end. | |
| 33 | FP | ✓ | 1094 | 1097 | +0.3% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | TL79SW | N Route terminates at the Feltwell Parish boundary at TL73559292, without a corresponding FP in Feltwell to join to. Has this accidentally been missed off the Map and Statement? Possibly is was stopped up for the former airfield, and then not reinstated after it closed. | |
| Totals | 38183 | 26808 | 70.2% | |||||||||
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 'Methwold 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.
No issues found in this parish.
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.
No issues found in this parish.