From: '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk 
  
 On 01/08/2025 15:54, Roger Hayter wrote: 
 > On 1 Aug 2025 at 15:27:26 BST, "Jon Ribbens"  
 > wrote: 
 > 
 >> On 2025-08-01, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote: 
 >>> On 31/07/2025 18:34, Roland Perry wrote: 
 >>>> In message , at 13:36:35 on Thu, 31 
 >>>> Jul 2025, Kempshott  remarked: 
 >>>>> Does a Local Authority have a statutory duty to keep its online 
 >>>>> definitive map up to date? 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> Ours still says "last update March 2021" and there have been many 
 >>>>> Modification Orders passed since then. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> I bet there's a lot of pre-2021 changes not on it either. I've had cause 
 >>>> to look at these maps in the past, and they are often woefully out of 
 date. 
 >>> 
 >>> It is pot luck what is and what is not included on the definitive maps. 
 >>> 
 >>> I suspect form the name that they are supposed to be maintained but if 
 >>> you know an area well it isn't hard to find recent changes that are 
 >>> missing. Updating them doesn't seem to be a high priority. 
 >> 
 >> There's either two possibilities, and I think the answer could be either 
 >> depending on which local authority it is. 
 >> 
 >> Either it isn't "the Definitive Map" at all, it's just an online map, 
 >> in which case I would expect there's no statutory duty to update it. 
 >> It might claim to reflect information from the Definitive Map, but 
 >> that doesn't make it definitive itself. 
 >> 
 >> Or, it is "the Definitive Map", in which case it is, er, definitive. 
 >> If it shows a right of way exists, then it does, and if it doesn't, 
 >> it doesn't. If they haven't updated it to show rights of way that 
 >> the council intended to create, then they haven't created them. 
 > 
 > I agree that this is the apparent legal situation. But it may be that a 
 third 
 > possibility exists: that the 'definitive map' actually exists in a state 
 which 
 > entails an old map and a set of approved amendments to it which together 
 > constitutes the 'definitive map'. It is not impossible that a court would 
 > accept this as the least worst interpretation. 
  
 NYC may be a special case since unification has pretty much totally 
 screwed up their ability to do things right. Experienced (expensive) 
 people were let go and the new unified authority is struggling with 
 inadequate resources and are lacking local knowledge lost as a result. 
  
 Perhaps in a decade or so the "Definitive Map" will once again be 
 definitive. I can think of public footpaths that are long since 
 overgrown to the point of being impossible to traverse. Not a very 
 useful path today so no one can be bothered to challenge it. 
  
 -- 
 Martin Brown 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)