You are in: Rob's OSM Stuff » UK PRoW » Progress » Suffolk » Mid Suffolk » Hoxne

Rights of Way in Hoxne Parish (Mid Suffolk, Suffolk)

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 Hoxne, in the district of Mid 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 199 209 +5.0% 4 2y   MZ OT
2 FP 92 96 +4.3% 4 2y   MZ OT
3 FP 232 237 +2.2% 4 2y   MZ OT D Electronic Statement says route continues to "Lodge-Eye Road", but route in GIS data stops a junction with FP 4.
4 FP 133 131 −1.5% 4 2y   MZ OT D Electronic Statement is a duplicate of FP 5, and I don't think either are correct.
5 FP 458 455 −0.7% 3 2y   MZ OT D Electronic Statement is a duplicate of FP 4, and I don't think either are correct.
6 FP 547 524 −4.2% 3 4m   MZ OT Path should follow the S bank of the river for 160m, but mapped route is further S.
7 FP 367 376 +2.5% 4 2y   MZ OT
8 FP 1014 1013 −0.1% 4 2y   MZ OT D Line in GIS data doesn't match Electronic Statement S of the bridge. Statement is consistent with mapped route in OSM. Should "9 metres" be "19 metres"?
9 FP 660 653 −1.1% 4 4m   MZ OT D Line in GIS data seems to be wrong at the N end. In particular, it doesn't meet up with NCC's line for Brockdish [South Norfolk] FP 17.
10 FP 153 156 +2.0% 4 2y   MZ OT D Statement says this route joins FP 11. But in GIS data, the FP 11/12 junction is further north.
11 FP 366 355 −3.0% 4 2y   MZ OT
12 FP 447 434 −2.9% 4 2y   MZ OT
13 FP 522 518 −0.8% 4 3y 1 MZ OT D First grid reference in Electronic Statement should be TM20147333.
14 FP 66 56 −15.2% 4 2y   MZ OT D In Electronic Statement, FP 14/15/16/17 all have the same description. GIS data has distinct routes.
15 FP 59 46 −22.0% 4 2y   MZ OT D In Electronic Statement, FP 14/15/16/17 all have the same description. GIS data has distinct routes.
16 FP 64 56 −12.5% 4 2y   MZ OT D In Electronic Statement, FP 14/15/16/17 all have the same description. GIS data has distinct routes.
17 FP 196 208 +6.1% 4 2y   MZ OT D In Electronic Statement, FP 14/15/16/17 all have the same description. GIS data has distinct routes.
18 FP 692 695 +0.4% 4 2y   MZ OT
19 FP 755 757 +0.3% 4 2y   MZ OT
20 FP 376 382 +1.6% 4 2y   MZ OT D Description duplicated in FP 21. Line in GIS data stops at FP 19, but description implies it continues further north.
21 FP 631 618 −2.1% 4 2y   MZ OT D First part of description duplicated in FP 20. Line in GIS data only starts at FP 19, but description implies path starts further south.
22 FP 639 652 +2.0% 4 2y   MZ OT
23 FP 1268 1224 −3.5% 3 5y   MZ OT D In the electronic statement the Grid references and perhaps description too are mis-ordered.
24 FP 378 384 +1.6% 4 5y   MZ OT
25 FP 959 971 +1.3% 4 9m   MZ OT
26 FP 1012 994 −1.8% 4 2y   MZ OT
27 FP 2489 2497 +0.3% 4 2y   MZ OT
27X BR 847 855 +0.9% 4 2y   MZ OT
28 BR 1187 1206 +1.6% 4 2y   MZ OT
29 BR 1176 1172 −0.3% 2 5y   MZ OT D Description in Electronic Statement says route terminates at the river, but line in GIS data stops short by 65m.
30 FP 637 637 +0.0% 4 4y   MZ OT
32 BY 291 294 +1.0% 4 5y   MZ OT
33 BY 1035 1032 −0.3% 4 5y   MZ OT
Totals   19947 19893 99.7%              

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 'Hoxne 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 2021‑10‑12, 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.

Errors and omissions in PRoW tags

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
216250942 Missing prow_ref public_footpath 131 m Public footpath fingerpost at Sylham Road Check designation -- not a Public Footpath according to SCC GIS data. J+
402144351 Missing prow_ref public_footpath 109 m Designation by virtue of official Suffolk County Council signage on ground J+

Errors and omissions in access tags

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.

Way ID Number TRO? Notes Fixme JRC
395439585 FP 13   Definitive line of FP 13 - I will check this sometime soon and fix accordingly - please do not delete or amend without messaging me! Check on ground to verify accessibilty and add appropriate highway=* tag J+

Parish ID: 773. OSM data last refreshed: 2021-10-07 15:05:06 Z.