From GPG

This paper is the outcome of discussions by groups of rights of way officers with experience of the consolidation process. It forms a record of practice that has been found successful (or not!) but as consolidation is not clearly defined in statute, regulations or case law, it is intended as guidance that must be considered in the circumstances of any individual authority.

Contents 1 Consolidation – why and how? 1.1 The Process of Consolidation 1.1.1 RUPPs 1.1.2 Map excluded areas 1.1.3 Omnibus Legal Event Modification Order 1.1.4 Other Constraints 2 The Way Forward 2.1 Reaching Consensus 2.2 The Process 2.2.1 Preparation 2.2.2 Orders 2.2.3 Mapping 2.2.4 Scale 2.2.5 Digitising 2.2.6 Validation 2.2.7 Anomalies 2.3 Publication 2.4 Continuously Review 2.5 Case Study

Consolidation – why and how?

A definitive map and statement consists of the published map and statement plus any orders that have been confirmed since publication. This may produce many problems for highway authorities, such as:

• Out-of-date Ordnance Survey map base that does not show development thus making orientation difficult, particularly for the public;
• Many orders, perhaps spanning over fifty years, made with widely varying degrees of accuracy and detail, making them difficult to relate to current situations, particularly where there is variance from the published Definitive Map base;
• Areas without a map because they were excluded under the 1949 Act;
• More than one map covering current authority area, inherited from other authorities, probably varying in standard and possibly scale and notation;
• Many additions and amendments resulting from orders which are confusing and difficult to portray accurately at scale.

Consolidation of a map is:

a) the incorporation of all orders with the original map into one up-to-date document,
and/or,
b) the production of one document merging two or more maps from different sources (eg. following change in highway authority boundaries).

Consolidating a definitive map can be a significant improvement to efficiency and effectiveness of any highway authority, not just for those directly involved with the definitive map review, but also partner organisations, particularly planning authorities; consultees; and other departments that could feasibly take into account rights of way, such as those dealing with recreation, cycling, greenspace, health, transport planning, conservation, etc.

Producing a map digitally has a major benefit, because it can be continuously updated and is always correct. It is easy to share, in 'live' form, and is therefore more easily integrated into functions of other departments or partners, with the result of greater awareness of rights of way, better observance of rights of way as constraints, and more likely integration of rights of way in other roles of the authority, with potential funding benefits. This 'working copy', although not the published legal document, for all practical day-to-day purposes is used as the definitive map.

Authorities that have produced a digital consolidated map strongly recommend doing so as, even if the map is known not to be totally accurate, at least it provides a new level from which to progress, and that level is a huge improvement on the dog-eared paper map of the 1960s and an archive of orders. It also provides an easy resource to continuously monitor and review, and a useful tool for identifying areas of work required and information for funding bids.

For these reasons, production of a consolidated digital map is assumed as good practice.

The Process of Consolidation

Consolidating a map has been a project beyond the resources of many authorities, viewed as a massive task that is too complex and demanding. In part, the barrier is the assumption that the map must be complete and perfect before it can be published and this is so unrealistic that the project fails immediately.

The primary concept to grasp is that the map will not be perfect: it is a snapshot in time and will continue to be reviewed, changed and improved. Consolidation simply provides a new baseline from which to work, giving a clearer picture of the situation and resources required.

Other common barriers to consolidation have been the requirements to reclassify all RUPPs, map excluded areas and make legal event orders for all public path orders. There are ways of reducing these barriers.

RUPPs

Reclassifying RUPPs, previously a major constraint in many authorities, was effected by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 s47-51 whereby all RUPPs have automatically become restricted byways. If there is evidence to say that the way should be of different status, this does not prevent publication of a consolidated map showing restricted byways until such time as modification orders are made, in the same way as any other challenged right will continue to be shown as defined until modified.

Map excluded areas

Excluded areas were permitted under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 in certain urban areas. Subsequent legislation has brought about the need to include all public rights of way on the definitive map, whether or not they are in urban areas or on the List of Streets.

A consolidated map requires complete coverage of the area, so an excluded area within the highway authority is a major barrier. Mapping an excluded area is a major task, but there are ways of making the task more manageable.

An essential principle to grasp is that the map of the excluded area does not have to be complete and accurate before publication. It is therefore perfectly feasible to publish a map of the excluded area even if very few rights of way are shown. A map of the excluded area will then exist, enabling consolidation which is the primary aim. The excluded area map will be under continuous review with rights being added as soon as cases are processed, in just the same way as the rest of the map.

A paper was produced in 2005 by Robin Carr Associates following discussion of mapping excluded areas at an IPROW workshop facilitated by Rhoda Barnett. The paper describes the procedure used in the City of York for mapping an excluded area and was generally held by the participants at the workshop as being an example of good practice. The process has since been followed by other authorities with success.

Omnibus Legal Event Modification Order

All legal events since the last publication of the definitive map that have affected a right of way but have not modified the map will need compiling into an omnibus modification order.

Finding all the orders made in the map area can be a problem. Authorities differ in the way in which they have recorded orders so the following may not all be valid for an authority.

Possible sources of orders to check:

• District council record office
• County/unitary record office
• Internal Parish/Ward records
• Legal services
• Seal Register (assuming that all orders have actually been sealed!)
• Ordnance Survey
• Ramblers' Association database

The search for orders should be as thorough as possible but if further orders should be found later, they can be added to the next omnibus modification order. The possibility that the order record may not be complete need not prevent or delay consolidation.

Recent orders may be straightforward in adding to a modification order, but older ones can present a number of problems, such as inaccurate measurement, inadequate description, parish boundary or path number change. It is suggested that such issues are reconciled with the consolidated statement by means of a series of footnotes that describe the amendment and its reason. Some of these may occur only once but others may be standards (eg. length or width taken as physical not from map, or from digital map, not order plan).

Examples of footnotes, courtesy of Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority are: (the symbols may not appear accurately on your browser see original):

# The total overall distance may alter from that stated in the description due to the value being calculated from the map rather than an actual ground measurement.

% This width has been taken from the definitive statement the order records a width of 2 metres.

The end point Grid Reference differs from the description Grid Reference as it was taken from a more accurate 1:2500 National Grid map.

This order has been (followed/preceded) by order dated 1969.

This diversion moved a public footpath that has never been recorded on the Definitive Map, however, it was being used and accepted as a public right of way. As such this path does not have a footpath number and consequently neither does the new path that has been created but it has commonly been recorded as part of footpath 21 in the parish of Hebden.

The purple line is actually shown by a broken black line with short intervals.

PART I of schedule referred to in the description for the path to be added ( anything in the order that may not normally be added but is referred to by a part that is being included)

Points A & B were not shown on the order map.

The order had no schedule describing the diverted route the description included above is the only reference available within the order and is written under number (2)(a).

In the order this reads C - B, but there is no point B on the order map and the description refers to points C - D.</em>

A gate, a fieldgate and two stiles have been marked on the order map at grid references SE 03046237, SE 0319 6230, SE 0359 6207 & SE 0359 6202, respectively. These restrictions have not been mentioned in the order and as such have been omitted from the legal event map and schedule.

This distance seems extremely high as the total width of field 1247 only measures 150 metres on the ordnance survey map.

The measurement from the end of High Lane to the point A, as specified within the description, has been measured as approximately 40 metres not 50 metres as stated.

% There is no statement for bridleway No. 5 in the parish of Embsay with Eastby.

* These two points were not shown in the order, they refer to the points were the path crosses the parish Boundary from Airton to Calton.

This legal event is connected to FP18 in the parish of Airton.

* This point is not labelled on the order map.

The stile as stated in the description does not appear in the obstruction column as it lies within the parish of Hebden, see the legal event for the Hebden parish.

These Grid References differ because the ones stated in the description are using six figure references with the slight anomalies being due to rounding etc.

These Grid References differ because the one stated in the description indicates a point that lies in the centre of the river, the altered Grid Reference records the point on the south west bank by the specified footbridge, as stated within the description.

The Grid References differ because the one stated in the description indicates a point some 130 metres off the definitive line as described.

This Grid Reference differs from that stated in the order as the one quoted in the order is slightly off the definitive line, the difference may be due to rounding.

These Grid References differ because the one stated in the order is slightly off the definitive line; the difference may be due to rounding.

This Grid Reference has been copied exactly off the order but is missing a number.

The order does not recognise that the new path crosses the parish boundary from Bordley to Rylstone therefore two legal events have been made to take account of the change in parish.

$ This is the end point as quoted in the description, however it has not been identified with a symbol either on the map or within the order.

* This is the point where the path crosses the parish boundary and as such the grid reference differs from that in the order.

* The order map shows two field gates (Grid References SD 9629 6437 and SD 9593 6459) and a footbridge (Grid Reference SD 9609 6447), these have not been mentioned in the order itself and as such have not been included in the Legal Event.

The line on the legal event map for the route to be extinguished differs slightly from the order map as it strictly follows the line as shown on the definitive map. As these two routes are within such close proximity it has been assumed that it is the definitive line that is being diverted.

By using such devices, it can be seen that a current statement can still be achieved without compromising the integrity of the original order.

For the benefit of the digital map, it is recommended that all order effects are recorded on GIS files separate from the definitive map table(s). Some authorities record the different status of rights of way in separate tables for ease of viewing and calculating but so long as the status is entered for each map object, filters and queries can be run on one table. Recording path changes makes it immediately obvious that an order has been made and its effect. (This can be carried through so that current and proposed orders are also shown, which can be useful information to partner organisations.)

Other Constraints

Further constraints have been the unwillingness of authorities' legal sections, of user groups or landowners to endorse consolidation because the process may encounter questions resulting from ambiguity in the legislation and there is uncertainty over the outcome of potential challenges.

Minor elements of consolidation may not have a straightforward interpretation, because the law is ambiguous or untested, so there will always be a need to publish 'warts and all', knowing that everything was done with best intention to the extent of evidence and skill available at the time. Throughout consolidation, there will be many instances that require decisions made on assessment and judgement of the evidence.

The Way Forward

A number of officers discussing good practice agreed that the aim is a consolidated map because it is of benefit to the work of the authority, its partners and all users, and is therefore for the ultimate benefit of the public by improving quality of mapping and information available. It is necessary to be clear that a paper map is a representation of rights, not a precision engineering drawing of physical features. There is a danger in being too accurate a view of what is a subjective interpretation.

The way forward is to ensure the willingness of all parties involved to accept both the high desirability of consolidation and a degree of pragmatism and uncertainty in achieving it. For those authorities that have 'taken the plunge' the feared consequences have not arisen. Parties to the process should be statutory consultees, the authority's legal team and the 'county surveyor'. The county surveyor should be included to reach agreement on roads, not least because interpretation of the draft map and instructions differed in 1950s - some took off a path line if it was also county road, some made it RUPP, some ignored it and retained as dual status.

Reaching Consensus

Involving a professional mediator or facilitator may be a very worthwhile step in this process depending on the personalities involved and skills of the officers.

Consensus to go ahead was achieved in one authority by first meeting representatives of major user groups or individuals reasonably expected to be antagonistic to the process and convincing them of the value of a consolidated map and statement on the grounds that it cannot be perfect but has to be an improvement on the existing situation and will be a major benefit in greater availability of the information and ease of its use for increasing funding opportunities.

With the agreement of consultees, that authority then went to the legal section with the approach that the process was desirable, in part required by legislation, and with the major potential protagonists already in agreement, unlikely to attract opposition.

The process went ahead and achieved an unopposed published digital map with documented outstanding cases requiring resolution in due course.

The Process

Preparation

Close familiarity with the existing map and the process of its production will be of great help to the people undertaking digitisation, such as:

• the accuracy of the Ordnance Survey (OS) base used (some authorities used the cheapest available, which were notoriously inaccurate, particularly at 1:25,000);
• differences between the definitive map base and its draft and provisional maps (eg. in North Yorkshire, the first drafts marked by the parish councils are not the same edition or scale as the provisional or definitive map);
• differences in depiction of features between those maps and the OS second epoch County Series (Second Edition).

The Second Edition is arguably the most accurate mapping produced by the OS in most counties, therefore its use to determine questions of position is recommended. In several study areas, more often than not, it appears that the line shown on the Second Edition will be that of the right of way, unless there has been a change in land use or ground disturbance. Familiarity with the way in which features are marked on the Second Edition and the maps of the definitive map process will be useful in consistent interpretation. This is particularly so if the base for the definitive map is not good, because the balance of probabilities in a question of interpretation will move towards the depiction on the Second Edition. Reference to the First Epoch (First Edition) OS will also be useful.

In most counties, the inconsistency of accuracy and the standard of drafting are very variable, between parishes, even within a parish when different surveyors were involved; and between sheets of draft, provisional or final maps where these were redrawn by more than one draftsman. With familiarity, the differences become obvious, again weighting the scales for interpretation of questionnable lines.

Even the printing process itself introduced errors in some counties, where the coloured lines of the paths were screen printed onto the base mapping, with consequent distortion across the sheet, sometimes to a very marked degree. This is referred to here as 'drift'.

Knowing the history and background of the existing definitive maps before starting can prevent new errors and enable better resolution of existing anomalies. In many authorities, one original map is now split into different authorities. Not everyone involved with that map may be aware of its history so it is recommended that all practitioners involved with a map combine knowledge to give as complete and consistent a history as possible to be adopted by each affected authority.

Orders

For an up to date map, the effect of all orders since the last map was published will need to be included in the new digital map. As a map of the effect of each order is required for its legal event modification order, the map can be prepared digitally, retaining the amendment details on a GIS table. Maintaining orders on a digital map has many advantages, not least that the order history is immediately evident to any user of the GIS.

Inputting effects of orders may take place before, during or after the digitisation of the definitive map. A significant advantage or disadvantage to the timing has not been identified so can be undertaken as resources permit.

Mapping

An early decision is needed on the map base to be used.

Vector mapping is far more accurate than raster mapping for rights of way purposes because every map object has a fine resolution obtained from many coordinate points. Raster has a much lower resolution and is based on cells so objects are not individually geo-referenced. The latest Ordnance Survey edition should be used (currently MasterMap when this was written in 2006). Updates to the mapping are usually received from the Ordnance Survey as part of the licence agreement. It is pointless to begin a new map on data that is no longer being updated (eg. LandLine as of 2006).

If MasterMap data is unfamiliar to you, it may appear daunting in its volume and complexity, but tables can be combined into one table or omitted to increase usability for the definitive map purpose (eg. combining several vegetation tables to one or several buildings tables).

As technology develops, future map bases will be more accurate, produced at varying scales. There will be difficulties as they change, such as the positional accuracy implications now being realised in moving from LandLine to MasterMap. This is not a reason for further delaying as it is a scenario that will continue to arise as technology progresses. It will always be easier to upgrade five years work than fifty five!

Scale

A scale of not less than 1:10,000 is recommended for most areas and 1:5,000, preferably higher, in urban areas. It is possible to produce a 1:10,000 print with insets or additional sheets at larger scale for developed areas. The North York Moors National Park Authority published a map at 1:10,000 with Village Conservation Areas (which included most villages of any size) at 1:1,250.

Digitisation should be undertaken at a minimum of twice the scale of the final view or print, that is, to view or print at 1:10,000 needs digitising at 1:5,000. Digitising at the same scale as the final view will not be very accurate, though this may be a compromise that has to be accepted with limited resources.

Digitising at more than twice the final scale will often be needed, especially around buildings, but the operator should be aware that a path line that is alongside a boundary line at 1:1,000, to scale in the physical relationship of the path to the wall, may appear on top of it at 1:10,000. In future, automatic adjustment of scale will occur but until then, the operator needs to consider the final scale at all times and testing will be needed to become familiar with tolerances of scale.

Digitising

A number of authorities have scanned the existing definitive map and use this as a 'digital' map. However, it is not truly a digital map, only an image, with possible inaccuracies. Most importantly, it is severely limited in value as a tool where a file of path lines, as objects, can be used extensively in spatial data planning, for analysis, statistics, linked to metadata and databases, and portrayed in different visual guises as appropriate to the task. (See Geographic Information System for more information).

Digitising is a manual process (although the technology for 'recognition' of scanned data is improving rapidly and may affordably permit translation of images into editable objects in future) needing a digitisation tablet (a device like a mouse with a lens and cross-hairs with which one traces the line). A methodical approach to each sheet is needed to ensure capture of each line. A scanned image of the original map can be useful in verification stages to lie underneath the digitised lines to check that none have been omitted.

If the effect of orders has already been mapped, then the digital map can take account of those changes immediately.

The first stage of digitisation may be done using a contractor or technician who is not a rights of way specialist, in which case the instruction should be to take the centre line of the path and to note if this is markedly different from a base map feature (eg. similar shape but adjacent to a track or path feature because of printing drift).

The use of attribute data is invaluable here as notes can be made associated with each path length. Use of standard descriptors or codes is recommended so that paths can be classified and selected for further investigation.

Depending on the accuracy of the original map, it may be decided that the centre line digitisation is adequate. However, in cases where many anomalies have been noted, further validation may be required. This should be undertaken by someone with good experience of the map's history, as described in Preparation. Cross-reference to the Second Edition and the draft and provisional maps may be required to interpret the intention of the map. Survey of the new map in relation to the actual line of ways is also desirable.

The key to this part of the process is documentation - the audit trail - that is the evidence against any challenge. GIS lends itself to this as the audit trail can, and should, be included in the attribute data for the line so that it cannot be mislaid, even if this gives reference to a paper file, which undoubtedly many lines will accrue.

If digitisation of orders has not taken place, then this needs to be undertaken at this stage so that lines can be amended accordingly before surveying.

Validation

Validation of the digital map to either aerial photographs or a physical survey is strongly recommended before publication. This becomes increasingly important if there are many questions arising from where the digital line should be. The argument of lack of resources should be countered by the potential cost arising from orders required to modify errors in the new map. A physical survey is best undertaken with a good geographic positioning system, known to be accurate to less than ten metres. (Ten metres is the limit of accuracy of the OS data in most areas, it will be more than ten metres in remote areas.) The survey should still be done by someone with good map skills who is able to question whether or not an actual way coincides with the mapped line.

Anomalies

Following validation, a number of anomalies between the actual way and mapped lines are likely to arise. Anomalies should be investigated against any available evidence. This will probably result in anomalies being categorised as:

• the digitised line should be amended to that of the used route;
• the map was accurate so the definitive line should be opened;
• the map was correct but the definitive line could not be made available (usually a longstanding building, reservoir or similar major obstruction);
• the definitive map was wrongly drawn and a modification order required.

Anomalies in the first category can be easily dealt with and it is suggested that the map should then be published, accepting that waiting for all anomalies to be resolved is probably impracticable and their existence is not a constraint on publication.

Publication

As yet, it is agreed that the legally recognised definitive map is printed material, but it is perhaps best considered as a representation of the working copy, taken at a moment in time.

The map should be printed at a quality that is adequate for its intended lifetime. This should be given particular consideration for colour maps in terms of permanency of colour.

Consideration should be given to the width at which path lines are shown relative to scale. While it has not yet been proposed that a path 'line' should actually be a polygon to reflect its width at all points (like public roads) the width available for interpretation, particularly where a map has been given scant validation, is important. This is the extrapolation used by most officers of, for example, a 1mm thick line at 1:25,000 equates to 25m width on the ground.

If the published map is unchallenged then it can be taken as accepted. If it is challenged, the defence will be that the best was done at the time, and evidence will be required to say that the map is wrong.

It can be said that whatever the wording of the law, the working copy is the true definitive map, the published paper is an archive, out of date before the print dries.

From the moment of printing, the consolidated map will continue to change as the working copy but it is important to keep a copy of all the definitive map tables in a secure archive from the moment of printing. It is also recommended to periodically (every quarter being a good starting point) create a new archive of the tables to provide a back reference for statistics or monitoring that have not as yet been devised. One of the benefits of GIS is as an analytical tool but the wish for data is frequently frustrated by the lack of past data so that an analysis from earlier years cannot be used for comparison. Maintaining frequent archive copies assists with the future needs of monitoring or analysis.

Continuously Review

As the digital map is the working copy, it is continuously reviewed, amended and up to date. A decision is needed on how often to publish the map, perhaps most influenced by the nature of the area and how many changes there are to paths and to base mapping. It could be automatically reproduced every five years, or given that some sheets will incur many more changes than others, it could be reprinted on a sheet basis, perhaps when five changes have occurred on a sheet. There will still be a need for a complete reprint to remain up to date base mapping, most particularly in developed areas.

Technology moves on and one argument against digital data is the problem that people have run into where archived data can no longer be read because it was produced with obsolete technology. Management of data is critical, whatever the form, and ensuring that all data can continue to be read in the future should be standard procedure for the security of data. However, it is worth ensuring that all archive copies of definitive map tables are maintained in an area of the server that is managed for future security.

Case Study

The definitive map of the North Riding of Yorkshire published in 1965 was not an example of good accuracy, for a number of reasons: a poor quality inaccurate base map at 1:25,000 was used, which differed from the parish survey maps at 1:10,560, leading to inaccurate drafting from parish map to draft map at 1:25,000; poor drafting by parishes or county draftsmen; poor printing process that gave significant drift on parts or even all, of some sheets of the final map.

As a result, having digitised the map for the area of the North York Moors National Park, that authority surveyed all rights of way in relation to the digitised map. Some two thousand anomalies were discovered. They were investigated against map evidence and in over one thousand cases, the line was amended, within the parameters of the original definitive map line, to reflect the route of the way for which there was most evidence.

Of the remaining eight hundred cases, further investigation was undertaken, resulting in evidence showing that:

• the digitised line should be amended to that of the used route;
• the map was accurate so the definitive line should be opened;
• the map was correct but the definitive line could not be made available (usually a longstanding building, reservoir or similar major obstruction);
• the definitive map was wrongly drawn and a modification order required.

The map was published at a point with around six hundred anomalies in the last three categories still outstanding.