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 Framlingham, in the district of East Suffolk, in the county of Suffolk. Data from the Surveying Authority (Suffolk 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 | ✓ | 486 | 182 | −62.6% | 2 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
2 | FP | ✓ | 1524 | 1539 | +1.0% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | D Description in Statement says route ends at Earl Soham FP 3. But that path does not exist, and the route in the GIS data does not go to the Earl Soham parish boundary. | ||
3 | BR | ✓ | 394 | 387 | −1.8% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
4 | FP | ✓ | 496 | 505 | +1.8% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | |||
5 | FP | ✓ | 604 | 596 | −1.3% | 4 | 3y | MZ | OT | |||
6 | FP | ✓ | 591 | 413 | −30.1% | 2 | 3y | MZ | OT | |||
7 | FP | ✓ | 273 | 282 | +3.3% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
8 | FP | ✓ | 646 | 674 | +4.3% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
9 | FP | ✓ | 1045 | 1051 | +0.6% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
10 | FP | ✓ | 155 | 159 | +2.6% | 4 | 6m | MZ | OT | |||
11 | FP | ✓ | 1153 | 1151 | −0.2% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
12 | FP | ✓ | 1047 | 1049 | +0.2% | 3 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
14 | FP | ✓ | 713 | 85 | −88.1% | 2 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
15 | FP | ✓ | 532 | 190 | −64.3% | 2 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
16 | FP | ✓ | 239 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | ||||
17 | FP | ✓ | 411 | 273 | −33.6% | 2 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
18 | FP | ✓ | 199 | 208 | +4.5% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | |||
19 | FP | ✓ | 1135 | 412 | −63.7% | 2 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
20 | FP | ✓ | 242 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | ||||
21 | FP | ✓ | 281 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | ||||
22 | FP | ✓ | 531 | 16 | −97.0% | 2 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
23 | FP | ✓ | 312 | 15 | −95.2% | 2 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
24 | FP | ✓ | 484 | 492 | +1.7% | 4 | 4m | MZ | OT | |||
25 | FP | ✓ | 216 | 222 | +2.8% | 4 | 4m | MZ | OT | O Short section where path on the ground runs on the wrong side of a ditch. | ||
26 | FP | ✓ | 2390 | 2387 | −0.1% | 4 | 4m | MZ | OT | |||
27 | FP | ✓ | 915 | 25 | −97.3% | 2 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
28 | FP | ✓ | 230 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | ||||
29 | FP | ✓ | 1024 | 28 | −97.3% | 2 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
30 | FP | ✓ | 843 | 839 | −0.5% | 4 | 4m | MZ | OT | |||
31 | FP | ✓ | 377 | 374 | −0.8% | 4 | 3y | MZ | OT | |||
32 | FP | ✓ | — | 0 | — | — | OT | D Anomaly in DM&S known to SCC: Appears as FP in Statement but BR on Definitive Map. | ||||
32 | BR | ✕ | 1458 | 1446 | −0.8% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | D Anomaly in DM&S known to SCC: Appears as FP in Statement but BR on Definitive Map. | ||
33 | FP | ✓ | 812 | 799 | −1.6% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
34 | FP | ✓ | 799 | 817 | +2.3% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
35 | FP | ✓ | 455 | 449 | −1.3% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
36 | FP | ✓ | 572 | 577 | +0.9% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
37 | FP | ✓ | 501 | 504 | +0.6% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
38 | FP | ✓ | 858 | 856 | −0.2% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
39 | FP | ✓ | 148 | 156 | +5.4% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
40 | FP | ✓ | 422 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | ||||
41 | FP | ✓ | 95 | 105 | +10.5% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | |||
42 | FP | ✓ | 590 | 596 | +1.0% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
43 | BR | ✓ | 491 | 576 | +17.3% | 4 | 4m | MZ | OT | D Statement also describes the section from Brick Lane at TM29046218 to TM28976214, which is also part of FP 44, but this is missing from the GIS data. | ||
44 | FP | ✓ | 570 | 583 | +2.3% | 4 | 4m | MZ | OT | |||
45 | FP | ✓ | 321 | 339 | +5.6% | 4 | 5m | MZ | OT | |||
46 | FP | ✓ | 294 | 297 | +1.0% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
47 | FP | ✓ | 1275 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | ||||
48 | BR | ✓ | 1070 | 1102 | +3.0% | 4 | 4m | MZ | OT | |||
50 | FP | ✓ | 1375 | 148 | −89.2% | 2 | 4m | MZ | OT | |||
51 | FP | ✓ | 1196 | 1196 | +0.0% | 4 | 4m | MZ | OT | |||
52 | FP | ✓ | 260 | 268 | +3.1% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
53 | FP | ✓ | 742 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | ||||
54 | FP | ✓ | 473 | 489 | +3.4% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
54A | FP | ✓ | 290 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | ||||
55 | FP | ✓ | 862 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | ||||
56 | FP | ✓ | 346 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | ||||
57 | FP | ✓ | 353 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | ||||
58 | FP | ✓ | 51 | 51 | +0.0% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
59 | FP | ✓ | 910 | 917 | +0.8% | 4 | 8m | MZ | OT | N Route ends on a "Private Roadway" | ||
60 | FP | ✓ | 214 | 70 | −67.3% | 2 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
61 | FP | ✓ | 218 | 230 | +5.5% | 4 | 3y | MZ | OT | |||
62 | FP | ✓ | 124 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | ||||
63 | FP | ✓ | 366 | 369 | +0.8% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | D Description in Statement has not been updated to account fro BR 63A, which now follows the second half of this route. | ||
63A | BR | ✓ | 350 | 370 | +5.7% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
64 | FP | ✓ | 119 | 124 | +4.2% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | D Description in Statement as of 2019-01 is actually the corrected description for FP 63. | ||
65 | FP | ✓ | 641 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | ||||
66 | BR | ✓ | 696 | 704 | +1.1% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | N No continuation for non-pedestrian users at eastern end. | ||
67 | FP | ✓ | 357 | 364 | +2.0% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
68 | FP | ✓ | 882 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | ||||
69 | FP | ✓ | 862 | 225 | −73.9% | 2 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
70 | FP | ✓ | 572 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | ||||
71 | FP | ✓ | 574 | 577 | +0.5% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
72 | FP | ✓ | 488 | 490 | +0.4% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
73 | FP | ✓ | 931 | 930 | −0.1% | 4 | 2y | MZ | OT | |||
74 | FP | ✓ | 364 | 371 | +1.9% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
75 | FP | ✓ | 443 | 443 | +0.0% | 4 | 8m | MZ | OT | |||
76 | FP | ✓ | 123 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | ||||
77 | FP | ✓ | 653 | 683 | +4.6% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
78 | FP | ✓ | 606 | 607 | +0.2% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
79 | FP | ✓ | 336 | 344 | +2.4% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
80 | FP | ✓ | 297 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | ||||
81 | FP | ✓ | 545 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | D Description in Statement is for combined FP 81 and BR 81X routes, without distinguishing them. | |||
81X | BR | ✓ | 514 | 500 | −2.7% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | D Description in Statement is for combined FP 81 and BR 81X routes, without distinguishing them. | ||
82 | FP | ✓ | 58 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | ||||
83 | FP | ✓ | 346 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | ||||
84 | FP | ✓ | 126 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | ||||
86 | FP | ✓ | — | 0 | — | — | OT | D Anomaly in DM&S known to SCC: Appears as FP in Statement but BR on Definitive Map. | ||||
86 | BR | ✕ | 268 | 168 | −37.3% | 2 | 2y | MZ | OT | D Anomaly in DM&S known to SCC: Appears as FP in Statement but BR on Definitive Map. | ||
87 | FP | ✓ | 424 | 414 | −2.4% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
88 | FP | ✓ | 568 | 578 | +1.8% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
89 | FP | ✓ | 623 | 616 | −1.1% | 4 | 8m | MZ | OT | |||
90 | FP | ✓ | 506 | 494 | −2.4% | 2 | 3y | MZ | OT | Mapped route has a small gap near the northern end. It's not clear how the paths should join up across the stream/ditch. Needs a ground survey. | ||
91 | FP | ✓ | 473 | 476 | +0.6% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
92 | FP | ✓ | 144 | 156 | +8.3% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
93 | BR | ✓ | 1086 | 1084 | −0.2% | 4 | 3y | MZ | OT | |||
95 | FP | ✓ | 1305 | 1304 | −0.1% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
96 | FP | ✓ | 30 | 35 | +16.7% | 4 | 4y | MZ | OT | |||
98 | FP | ✓ | 86 | 0 | — | 1 | MZ | OT | ||||
99 | FP | ✓ | 9 | 12 | +33.3% | 4 | 3y | MZ | OT | |||
Totals | 54404 | 38563 | 70.9% |
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 'Framlingham 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 2022‑10‑11, 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 suffolk_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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
702375691 | No highway tag | Framlingham␣FP␣6 | public_footpath | 172 m | Check on ground | 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.