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 Scole, in the district of South Norfolk, in the county of Norfolk. Data from the Surveying Authority (Norfolk County Council) is compared with the data in OpenStreetMap. (more information)
See: OSM Carto
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 | ✓ | 809 | 814 | +0.6% | 4 | 6y | MZ | OT | TM18SE | ||
| 2 | FP | ✓ | 447 | 477 | +6.7% | 3 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM18SE | ||
| 3 | FP | ✓ | 481 | 493 | +2.5% | 3 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM18SE | Definitive line seems to be to west of boundary on norther section, but line mapped in OSM is to the East. | |
| 4 | FP | ✓ | 200 | 206 | +3.0% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | TM18SE | ||
| 5 | FP | ✓ | 1338 | 1377 | +2.9% | 3 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM18SE | ||
| 6 | FP | ✓ | 252 | 254 | +0.8% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM18SE | ||
| 7 | FP | ✓ | 463 | 476 | +2.8% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM18SW | Mapped route may not follow definitive line exactly. | |
| 8 | FP | ✓ | 1027 | 1024 | −0.3% | 4 | 3y | MZ | OT | TM18SW | ||
| 9 | RB | ✓ | 1045 | 1045 | +0.0% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM18SW | ||
| 10 | FP | ✓ | 779 | 763 | −2.1% | 3 | 17m | MZ | OT | TM18SW | O Mapped route deviates from the definitive line near the electricity pylon at TM13898017. Route obstructed by hedge at TM13878027. | |
| 11 | FP | ✓ | 294 | 371 | +26.2% | 4 | 17m | MZ | OT | TM18SW | D The Definitive Statement says the path ends at St Andrew's Church, but the line in GIS data stops short. | |
| 12 | FP | ✓ | 1340 | 1405 | +4.9% | 4 | 6y | MZ | OT | TM18SE | ||
| 13 | FP | ✓ | 1168 | 1183 | +1.3% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM18SE | ||
| 14 | FP | ✓ | 1421 | 1425 | +0.3% | 4 | 5m | MZ | OT | TM18SE | ||
| 15 | FP | ✓ | 997 | 1006 | +0.9% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | TM18SE | ||
| 16 | RB | ✓ | 1569 | 1576 | +0.4% | 4 | 3m | MZ | OT | TM17NE | ||
| 17 | FP | ✓ | 355 | 360 | +1.4% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | TM17NE | ||
| 18 | FP | ✓ | 640 | 658 | +2.8% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM17NE | ||
| 19 | RB | ✓ | 1046 | 1053 | +0.7% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM17NE | ||
| 20 | FP | ✓ | 256 | 268 | +4.7% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM17NE | ||
| 21 | FP | ✓ | 1055 | 1027 | −2.7% | 3 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM17NE | ||
| 22 | RB | ✓ | 513 | 518 | +1.0% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM17NE | ||
| 23 | FP | ✓ | 1160 | 1186 | +2.2% | 3 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM17NE | In at least two places, the mapped route in OSM does not follow the Definitive Line. | |
| 24 | FP | ✓ | 266 | 273 | +2.6% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM17NE | ||
| 25 | FP | ✓ | 354 | 354 | +0.0% | 4 | 8y | MZ | OT | TM17NE | ||
| 26 | FP | ✓ | 790 | 804 | +1.8% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM17NE | ||
| 27 | FP | ✓ | 285 | 282 | −1.1% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM17NE | ||
| 28 | FP | ✓ | 1113 | 1129 | +1.4% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM17NE | ||
| 29 | FP | ✓ | 346 | 349 | +0.9% | 4 | 9m | MZ | OT | TM17NE | ||
| 30 | FP | ✓ | 164 | 188 | +14.6% | 3 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM17NE | ||
| 31 | FP | ✓ | 118 | 133 | +12.7% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM17NW | ||
| 32 | RB | ✓ | 1261 | 1258 | −0.2% | 4 | 3y | MZ | OT | TM17NW | ||
| 33 | FP | ✓ | 679 | 694 | +2.2% | 4 | 3y | MZ | OT | TM17NW | ||
| 34 | FP | ✓ | 301 | 302 | +0.3% | 4 | 3y | MZ | OT | TM17NW | ||
| 35 | RB | ✓ | 695 | 708 | +1.9% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM17NW | ||
| 36 | FP | ✓ | 403 | 457 | +13.4% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM17NW | D The alignment of the route in the GIS does not match the line shown on an historic OS 1:25k map, nor the position of the RoW sign at the western end. The Definitive Map is inconclusive, but I'm assuming the GIS data is wrong. | |
| 37 | FP | ✓ | 554 | 562 | +1.4% | 4 | 7y | MZ | OT | TM18SE | ||
| 38 | FP | ✓ | 40 | 28 | −30.0% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM17NE | ||
| 39 | BR | ✓ | 52 | 56 | +7.7% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM17NW | D Definitive Statement has length at 250m, but in GIS data and on Definitive map it is only about 50m. Given Statement for BR 45, the GIS data is probably correct. | |
| 40 | BR | ✓ | 67 | 101 | +50.7% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM17NE | Short link on line of stopped up road. | |
| 41 | BR | ✓ | 49 | 54 | +10.2% | 4 | 3y | MZ | OT | TM17NW | ||
| 42 | FP | ✓ | 318 | 314 | −1.3% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | TM18SE | ||
| 43 | BR | ✓ | 640 | 642 | +0.3% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | TM17NE | N In GIS data NE end stops short of highway. Perhaps the final part is within the highway boundary though. | |
| 44 | FP | ✓ | 176 | 177 | +0.6% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | TM17NW | ||
| 45 | BR | ✓ | 56 | 50 | −10.7% | 4 | 3y | MZ | OT | TM17NW | D Route does not appear on Definitive Map (online scan, as of October 2016) but is included in GIS data. | |
| Totals | 27382 | 27880 | 101.8% | |||||||||
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 'Scole 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 108343459 | Missing prow_ref | public_footpath | 15 m | Bypass for Ford on Restricted Byway. This route does not seem to be recorded as a Public Right of Way, but there is a Norfolk County Council public footpath signpost present indicating it is. | J+ | ||
| 148702658 | Missing prow_ref | public_footpath | 98 m | Norfolk County Council signpost on ground indicates this is a public footpath. | J+ | ||
| 522206301 | Missing prow_ref | public_footpath | 48 m | Designation as public footpath by virtue of official waymark at road. But it's not recorded in the Council's 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.
No issues found in this parish.