Code of practice or rules for boundary disputes

Please can you help us with your code of practice or general rules for disputed boundaries [as detailed in full in the request]? Is there any system in place that would provide us with a definitive joining of the 2 plans in the disputed area, or perhaps some other map or plan that we could refer to?

Thank you for your letter dated 6^th January 2010. We are pleased to provide you with the following information with regard to your request:

Firstly, please note that Ordnance Survey topographic mapping gives no information on land and property ownership – priority may be given to capturing those real world features which in the opinion of the data collector best represent the physical limit of a parcel of land, but no effort is made to establish legal property boundaries.

Although as you are aware we are unable to comment on specific cases, it would be useful just to confirm our understanding of the situation; xxxxxx Surveying (Ref. their conclusion / Para. 3.0.3 ) have ‘adopted’ a particular representation of selected topographic features in Ordnance Survey mapping ( i.e. detail from County Series plans XLVI.3 and XLVI.7 ) as “a new alignment for the legal boundary”. Please note that it is a matter for Land Registry to comment on the legal boundary of a property, and on any relationship between a legal boundary and actual real world features; I can however comment on your general questions about the representation of real world features in Ordnance Survey large scales mapping.

In reference to your question regarding ‘simplicity of cartography’, Ordnance Survey’s general rule is that real world features which have an extent or shape that can be defined at scale are depicted by map detail in its true plan position. In other words, any real world alignment or shape must be accurately reflected in the map, such that real world objects that are straight for example must be represented as straight lines in the map.

The standard expected of our basic scales ( 1:1250 / 1:2500 / 1:10 000 ) mapping is that this principle of ‘geometric fidelity’ holds true for mapping viewed at source scale, bearing in mind the constraints that scale impose on the minimum dimensions or changes of alignment that can sensibly be depicted ( Note that for new detail captured using digital applications, this geometric fidelity must in fact hold true for any basic scales detail viewed at 1:500 scale ).

In reference to your question regarding joining County Series plans XLVI.3 and XLVI.7, there is no system in place for creating a definitive join such that all line-work will be edge matched and geometric fidelity will be preserved. Paper copies, which are subject to the relative ‘instability’ of that medium, can only be joined by eye – similarly, my understanding is that scanned copies of County Series plans would be joined in a viewing application by assigning common coordinates to relevant corners.

In reference to your question regarding other maps or plans you could refer to, the features in question are represented by detail in current Ordnance Survey large scale topographic mapping (OS MasterMap® Topography Layer). Note however that the geometry of all detail is subject to its provenance, and in all mapping including OS MasterMap Topography Layer must be considered in light of the range of acceptable quality levels for positional accuracy.

In summary, ‘minor’ deviations of alignment across the edges of County Series plans should not be relied on as definitive evidence that, when the real world feature in question was first captured, the surveyor’s interpretation was that the feature was not ‘effectively’ straight, or that the surveyor’s intention was not to record a straight line in the mapping. Similarly ( given the constraints of scale, and subject to the ‘definition’ of the real world features in question – a brick wall is better ‘defined’ than an ancient hedge and bank for example) ‘minor’ differences in the geometry of detail enlarged from County Series plans, and of detail captured by independent surveys of the same real world feature, should not be relied on as definitive evidence that the actual real world feature in question had subsequently been realigned’.

Please note that your enquiry has been processed to Freedom of Information guidelines.  As all requested information has been provided, we have determined that in all the circumstances of this case the Public interest consideration (section 17 FOIA) is not applicable in this instance.

If you are unhappy with our response, you may raise an appeal to our Appeals Officer at:

Complaints Team

Customer Service Centre

Ordnance Survey

Romsey Road

SOUTHAMPTON

SO16 4GU  

Please include the reference number below. The Appeals Officer will ensure that the process has been followed correctly, questioning any decisions taken regarding the original response and recommending disclosure of additional information if appropriate.

Reference number:  FOI1020 / January 2010