The most annoying one was when we went to climb Beinn Mheadhonach(Marilyn East of Beinn Sgulaird)we had been told that someone who had climbed it via the An Grianan route had spotted a big track coming in between Beinn Sgulaird and Creach Beinn. If we had looked at our record of climbing Creach Beinn we would have known about it, but had departed from it low down climbing Beinn Sgulaird. However, it does not appear on the Landranger Map and definitely should do, since it has been there for yonks.
Too late for you, but that one is on the 1:50k map now:
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=203439&Y=743974&A=Y&Z=120&ax=104248&ay=923825.
I generally check e.g. Google or Bing imagery before setting out, to find where the newest tracks, bridges, woodland etc might be.
Here is a statement of OS's policy for updating:
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-government/tools-support/mastermap-topography-support/revision-policyIt shows that some feature types are continuously revised whereas other are cyclically revised (2 to 10 years).
If I have read it correctly:
-
Continuous would include 'prestige sites' (a strange title IMO) like sizeable wind farms, high voltage transmission lines, large dams and reservoirs.
-
Cyclical would include tracks and paths, and I think changes to forested areas. It looks to me like most areas we would go hillwalking are in the cyclical category. I think these are the kinds of changes that OS would not automatically be notified about.
OS
might appreciate change information from the public, squirreling it away until doing a cyclical revision. Or they might not: I don't see any way on their web site to supply reports (other than error notifications) from the public, so maybe they just find it a distraction and hit the automated reply button when told about a change.
I know that mapping of unpopulated areas has always lagged e.g. in the Scottish highlands the six inch map took forever to be replaced; but technology has changed.
I would question whether the cyclical approach is still sufficient for any part of GB. It is probably only a marginal amount of the edits needed to their database. I would think they could make some preliminary changes continuously, improving them later in the cyclical revision. The benefit would be that hillwalking areas would be more continuously up to date with good-enough accuracy.