In UK due to land use changes the definitive "Rights of Way" do not always follow the actual path. Eg square meadow - right of way two sides of square - signed as such - but no evidence on ground. Path through meadow seen on ground as going diagonally across field. Even when there is no alternative route how do you show the difference between a right of way that is actually visible on the ground and one that although has legal existance and is signed has no physical presence - eg across moorland - My thoughts spring to a Right of Way in Yorkshire that descends a near vertical rock-fact beside a waterfall it exists on the map and you see the intrepid using it but beside that nothing.

In UK due to land use changes the definitive "Rights of Way" do not always follow the actual path. Eg square meadow - right of way two sides of square - signed as such - but no evidence on ground. Path through meadow seen on ground as going diagonally across field. Even when there is no alternative route how do you show the difference between a right of way that is actually visible on the ground and one that although has legal existance and is signed has no physical presence - eg across moorland - My thoughts spring to a Right of Way in Yorkshire that descends a near vertical rock-fact beside a waterfall it exists on the map and you see the intrepid using it but beside that nothing.