Confident, pinpoint navigation depends on accurate maps for the walker and mountaineer

 Thanks very much for the e-mail and yesterday evening's discussion.

I made good use of the DM in January 2019 in re-opening Worcs 514(A is my insistence) (actually, 514(D) because the landowner was only too happy for it to become invisible/grown over, to further protect her caravans in her caravan storage park in the railway cutting.  She is now using my new path, herself!).  The large scale paper version proved beyond doubt it was a right of way and, with the note, "farm cart track".  It runs between two long rows of railway concrete posts, twelve of which I straightened!  I would love to show you, one day, because it opens up the extensive path network in our 32 sq Km Golden Green Triangle from Hunnington cricket ground and the proposed housing development at the Blue Bird sweet site.  It allows more circular walks from Bromsgrove Road.

I certainly want more paths or obvious desire lines and, lost paths to be added to the DM but would prefer the Ordnance Survey, when there is conflict between the old DM path and the actual path on the ground, to map the one on the ground and not the invisible one.  This, for clarity, to not clutter the map and to avoid confusion for walkers that then lead to complaints to the OS at Southampton.  The DM will always remain as the final arbiter and protector.  I'm attaching three screenshots of the zig-zag path at Neen Sollars that is even more important because it appears to be a sunken lane but is missed off the OS maps.  Very poor!

I'm simply insisting on accuracy, correctness and to be able to hone my much sought after pinpoint navigation skills on 100% reliable maps!

Thanks so much for your point of view that has informed me so helpfully.

All the best