You are in: Rob's OSM Stuff » UK PRoW » Progress » Suffolk » West Suffolk » Mapping Updates

OSM Status Updates for West Suffolk, Suffolk

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

Parish Number LGIS LOSM ΔL/L MS LE Notes
Hepworth FP 10 819 0 2   Provisionally listed in pencil on 2014 Paper Statement as a path between the U6412 at TL98897599 and Wood Lane at TL98677527. Claim rejected initially, but re-submitted following a change in case law. Application being determined by hearing in February 2018. Listed in DMMO register with reference CPM52. Added to Statement and GIS data 2020-04. In statement, the second grid reference is short of a digit.

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

Parish Number LGIS LOSM ΔL/L MS LE Notes
Barrow FP 6 1458 1388 −4.8% 2 5y Short section to N of railway currently unmapped.
Bradfield Combust FP 6 214 211 −1.4% 2 4y Join with road at SW end not mapped in OSM.
Dalham FP 3 1418 1675 +18.1% 2 5y Unclear which path/track to follow NE from the road.
Denston FP 18 420 402 −4.3% 2 4y Short section at south end not yet mapped in OSM.
Freckenham FP 10 3889 3707 −4.7% 2 5y Short section unmapped at NW corner.
Great Barton BR 5 1942 1947 +0.3% 2 3y Short section at east end of short southern section by roundabout not mapped.
Great Wratting FP 1 2310 2218 −4.0% 2 4y Compass points in description seem wrong in several places. Short section unmapped in OSM.
Hargrave FP 14 888 881 −0.8% 2 5y Small section at E end unmapped.
Ingham FP 8 957 958 +0.1% 2 5y Electronic Statement includes a NW leg that is in Culford Parish, and is shown in the GIS data to be part of Culford FP 3.
Kedington FP 1 2816 2708 −3.8% 2 4y Short section in the middle unmapped. Also need to check access rights at SE end across Calford Green.
Tuddenham BR 2 1924 1883 −2.1% 2 5y Small section in the middle unmapped.

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

Parish Number LGIS LOSM ΔL/L MS LE Notes
Bardwell FP 9 76 104 +36.8% 4 7y
Bradfield St Clare FP 15 218 200 −8.3% 4 2y
Bradfield St George BR 30 471 569 +20.8% 4 20m Electronic Statement says route starts at TL9004059403 at junction with BR 28. In the GIS data the route only starts about 100m north-west of this point at TL89975946. The track between is not shown as a Right of Way. If the GIS data is correct, then there is a gap in the PRoW network.
Brandon FP 18 474 608 +28.3% 4 4y Route is in three parts. In the GIS data, the east-most part is short by about 100m at its western end. In the GIS data, the central and western parts appear to be the wrong (south) side of the river. Western end of east-most section doesn't join up with the path in Weeting Parish, Norfolk.
Bury St Edmunds FP 8 454 496 +9.3% 4 4y
Bury St Edmunds FP 9 148 181 +22.3% 4 4m Electronic Statement has the same description for FP 9 as FP 9X, both describing the whole route. In the GIS data, 9 is the western part.
Bury St Edmunds RB 17X 194 316 +62.9% 4 4y Description in Electronic Statement doesn't distinguish between 17 and 17X. It also suggests route should be continuous, i.e. segment from TL85856330 to Cullham Road missing from the GIS data should be an FP or BR.
Bury St Edmunds FP 20 144 182 +26.4% 4 7w Line in GIS data is split with a gap for the A1302. Electronic Statement describes a continuous route.
Bury St Edmunds BR 37 113 135 +19.5% 4 20m
Chevington BY 16 334 480 +43.7% 4 5y Electronic Statement gives GR for S end of path, but route in GIS data only starts 140m further on at TL77755803. The missing section is probably dual with Hargrave BY 23.
Clare FP 9 3197 3026 −5.3% 4 3m
Dalham FP 8 542 1221 +125.3% 4 5y Electronic Statement and GIS data are at odds. GIS data is missing the section between TL74896006 and TL75066070, while the Statement is missing the section between TL75066070 and TL74856078. Has there been a diversion / modification order that has only been actioned in one place?
Fornham All Saints FP 4 1938 1829 −5.6% 4 12m A Diversion Order has been confirmed, and came into force when the new route through Marham Park was complete: http://www.suffolkpublicrightsofway.org.uk/assets/Orders-not-yet-implemented/Confirmed-orders/CO505-Fornham-All-Saints-FP4-confirmed-order.pdf .
Great Bradley FP 2 1655 1534 −7.3% 4 4y Route in GIS data includes an erroneous tripled-over section around TL66715386, which means the GIS length is around 100m longer than it should be.
Haverhill BR 47 33 26 −21.2% 4 4y
Icklingham BR 15 94 79 −16.0% 4 5y
Little Wratting BY 6 866 731 −15.6% 4 6m Line in GIS data ends at TL67094686, but the final grid reference given in electronic Statement is TL67014677. The latter corresponds with the original location of the Haverhill parish boundary.
Mildenhall FP 34 904 821 −9.2% 4 6m The electronic Statement says the route goes "about 95 metres in a generally westerly direction". GIS data has a length of 903m in a NW and N direction. GIS data also includes a branch along Jubilee Way, and a Branch crossing the river W of FP 51 where there is no bridge. Also, the join with FP 38 at SE end in the GIS data is not consistent with the grid reference given in the statement for FP 38. Statement and/or GIS data presumably need updating.
Mildenhall FP 38 69 108 +56.5% 4 6m In the Statement, the first grid reference (TL7175574125) and the quoted length (118m) are consistent. But in the GIS data, the junction with FP 34 is instead at TL71797412, given a length of only 70m.
Mildenhall FP 51 29 53 +82.8% 4 10m
Pakenham FP 2 1301 1420 +9.1% 4 5y According to Electronic Statement, this path starts on Ixworth Road, and runs E to Old Hall. In the GIS data, this segment is show as part of FP 3 instead.
Pakenham FP 3 971 861 −11.3% 4 2y According to Electronic Statement, FP starts from FP 2 at Old Hall. In the GIS data, there is an additional segment W to Ixworth Road. This segment should be part of FP 2 instead.
Risby FP 8 483 837 +73.3% 4 3m Electronic Statement appears to include a length of Welham Lane eastwards to the the Green, whereas the GIS data stops at TL79326635 at the west end of Welham Lane.
Rougham FP 25 191 221 +15.7% 4 4y

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

Parish Number LGIS LOSM ΔL/L MS LE Notes
Bradfield St George BR 30 471 569 +20.8% 4 20m Electronic Statement says route starts at TL9004059403 at junction with BR 28. In the GIS data the route only starts about 100m north-west of this point at TL89975946. The track between is not shown as a Right of Way. If the GIS data is correct, then there is a gap in the PRoW network.
Bury St Edmunds RB 17X 194 316 +62.9% 4 4y Description in Electronic Statement doesn't distinguish between 17 and 17X. It also suggests route should be continuous, i.e. segment from TL85856330 to Cullham Road missing from the GIS data should be an FP or BR.
Chevington BY 16 334 480 +43.7% 4 5y Electronic Statement gives GR for S end of path, but route in GIS data only starts 140m further on at TL77755803. The missing section is probably dual with Hargrave BY 23.
Little Wratting BY 6 866 731 −15.6% 4 6m Line in GIS data ends at TL67094686, but the final grid reference given in electronic Statement is TL67014677. The latter corresponds with the original location of the Haverhill parish boundary.
Mildenhall FP 34 904 821 −9.2% 4 6m The electronic Statement says the route goes "about 95 metres in a generally westerly direction". GIS data has a length of 903m in a NW and N direction. GIS data also includes a branch along Jubilee Way, and a Branch crossing the river W of FP 51 where there is no bridge. Also, the join with FP 38 at SE end in the GIS data is not consistent with the grid reference given in the statement for FP 38. Statement and/or GIS data presumably need updating.
Mildenhall FP 38 69 108 +56.5% 4 6m In the Statement, the first grid reference (TL7175574125) and the quoted length (118m) are consistent. But in the GIS data, the junction with FP 34 is instead at TL71797412, given a length of only 70m.
Pakenham FP 3 971 861 −11.3% 4 2y According to Electronic Statement, FP starts from FP 2 at Old Hall. In the GIS data, there is an additional segment W to Ixworth Road. This segment should be part of FP 2 instead.
Risby FP 8 483 837 +73.3% 4 3m Electronic Statement appears to include a length of Welham Lane eastwards to the the Green, whereas the GIS data stops at TL79326635 at the west end of Welham Lane.
Santon Downham FP 2 2977 3050 +2.5% 4 5y

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

No RoWs found with this issue

Mapped RoWs flagged as not following the definitive line

Parish Number LGIS LOSM ΔL/L MS LE Notes
Bradfield St Clare FP 9X 279 256 −8.2% 3 4y
Brockley FP 8 638 616 −3.4% 3 4y
Cavendish FP 3 649 654 +0.8% 3 13m
Cavendish FP 9 1617 1604 −0.8% 3 13m
Cavendish FP 12 474 513 +8.2% 3 13m
Cavenham BY 4 674 671 −0.4% 3 5y Mapped route doesn't follow definitive line at N end.
Chevington FP 5 1069 1091 +2.1% 3 4y
Clare FP 18 1699 1705 +0.4% 3 11m
Clare FP 20 31 38 +22.6% 3 3m
Dalham FP 2 1556 1661 +6.7% 3 5y East end of mapped route doesn't join road in the same place as the GIS data.
Denham FP 4 367 377 +2.7% 3 5y
Denham FP 5 707 694 −1.8% 3 18m Mapped route doesn't quite follow definitive line at SW end.
Denham FP 7 1171 1178 +0.6% 3 18m Mapped route doesn't follow definitive line in the middle. Route should probably be on the easter side of the field boundary.
Depden FP 6 237 230 −3.0% 3 5y
Eriswell FP 9 330 362 +9.7% 3 6y
Fornham St Martin FP 9 303 322 +6.3% 3 5y
Great Livermere FP 3 217 197 −9.2% 3 5y
Great Thurlow FP 1 363 376 +3.6% 3 10m
Great Thurlow FP 2 567 610 +7.6% 3 16m
Hargrave FP 3 884 892 +0.9% 3 5y Electronic Statement says path starts at Southwood Park Farm, but route in GIS data only starts from Carter's Park wood. Has the path been partly extinguished? Also mapped route not quite right near SE corner of Carter's Park.
Hargrave FP 17 431 465 +7.9% 3 4y
Higham FP 8 1102 1119 +1.5% 3 5y Mapped route in OSM deviates from Definitive Line for about 100m at south end.
Hundon FP 1 2225 2252 +1.2% 3 4y
Little Livermere FP 3 527 522 −0.9% 3 4y
Little Thurlow FP 2 716 714 −0.3% 3 8m
Market Weston FP 3 537 578 +7.6% 3 5y
Mildenhall BR 11X 1560 1593 +2.1% 3 13m Route is in two parts.
Mildenhall FP 36 100 120 +20.0% 3 6y
Moulton FP 5 182 198 +8.8% 3 5y
Poslingford FP 1 1120 1108 −1.1% 3 4y
Poslingford BR 7 4581 4588 +0.2% 3 13m Slight deviation from Definitive Line just south of junction with FP 17.
Poslingford FP 17 263 265 +0.8% 3 13m
Rougham FP 6 736 743 +1.0% 3 4y
Rougham FP 10 973 1275 +31.0% 3 2m In the GIS data, the northern end of the route is at TL92876248, which doesn't quite meet with the southern end of Beyton FP 2 at TL92876252. I suspect the GIS data for this route is in error. The northern part of the mapped route does not quite follow the definitive line.
Stansfield FP 9 718 731 +1.8% 3 5y
Troston RB 1 1484 1479 −0.3% 3 5y Mapped route doesn't quite follow line in GIS data, but no evidence that GIS data is correct.
Whepstead FP 3 1648 1568 −4.9% 3 4y
Wickhambrook FP 8 575 550 −4.3% 3 5y
Wickhambrook FP 23 427 424 −0.7% 3 5y
Wickhambrook FP 24 703 716 +1.8% 3 21m
Wickhambrook FP 35 341 300 −12.0% 3 5y
Wickhambrook FP 41 1643 1472 −10.4% 3 5y
Withersfield FP 4 689 705 +2.3% 3 4y Mapped alignment doesn't look right around the farm.
Wordwell FP 1 592 607 +2.5% 3 6y
Wordwell FP 3 962 981 +2.0% 3 6m

RoWs present in parishes without Definitive Statement import

No RoWs found with this issue