Ordnance Survey

4. Dr U complains about OS’s mapping of the foreshore (the part of a shore between high and low water marks, or between the water and cultivated or developed land) of the Dysynni river, that is near her farm.

5. She says that due to OS incorrectly mapping the river she has:

• had to pay for a university to take on a new mapping of the river • had wildfowlers (people who hunt birds such as geese and ducks) trespass on her private property due to the ‘continual mapping of tidal land where none exists’ • experienced stress, intimidation and worry • witnessed wildlife disturbance and persecution and the mismanagement of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) • had verbal and physical threats.

6. Dr U would like financial compensation of £7,000, an apology and for OS to re-map the Dysynni river.

7. Dr U discovered a shooting map in February 2019 issued by the British Association of Shooting and Conservation, which she says was based upon OS’s incorrect mapping of the Dysynni river.

8. She complained to OS and her MP in March 2019 about this.

9. In September 2020, in response to Dr U’s complaint, OS arranged for an external organisation to do an aerial survey of the river.

10. Dr U also contacted a university and paid it to do a study of the river. Its report was released in June 2021.

11. OS met with the university to discuss the report, which led to OS changing some parts of its mapping of the Dysynni river.

12. Dr U is still unhappy with OS’s mapping.

15. Before we decide if we should do a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation got something wrong. It is not our role to say if OS’s mapping of the Dysynni river is correct. OS makes the decision of how it does its work and how it interprets scientific evidence when it is creating maps. We can only investigate its decision making when there are clear signs of fault. We can look to see if OS acted in line with relevant guidance when dealing with Dr U’s complaint and considering the evidence and concerns she gave it. We have done this and have not seen any signs that something has gone wrong.

16. Dr U said the British Association of Shooting and Conservation’s mapping led to illegal trespassing on her private land by wildfowlers, tourists and visitors, as well as the disturbance and persecution of local wildlife.

17. Dr U complained to OS about this in March 2019 saying the mapping incorrectly showed ‘land and river at our farm as tidal land’. She said she told OS she had historical maps and evidence to show its mapping was wrong.

18. Dr U said she succeeded in getting OS to do an aerial survey of the entire area in September 2020, with the aim of accurately mapping the area. She said the photographs taken from this survey confirmed there was no foreshore’ on the river. Dr U says OS did not use the aerial photographs taken but instead used a set of aerial photographs from a survey done during an extreme drought in April 2020.

19. Dr U says the university’s mapping showed OS’s mapping was incorrect. She says in the morning when OS planned to discuss the report with the university, OS told her it ‘would not review the data with the oceanographers if [she] was to be included in this critical meeting’.

20. Dr U said OS partly changed its mapping of the river, based upon the university report. She also says that although OS made a change to its mapping, the change was not enough to create a fully, accurate map.

21. OS said that on 21 May 2021 it emailed its map extracts from the survey it did in September 2020 to Dr U. It said in the same email it sent her map extracts from its revision in 2019, to show the changes it had made because of the September 2020 survey.

22. OS said after it met with the university it changed the river’s tidal limit (the farthest point upstream where a river is affected by tidal changes, or where the changes are less than a certain amount) to a new location. It explained how after this it did a remote survey using the new tide heights and felt its new mapping was correct. OS also said, ‘the fact that OS repositioned the [tidal limit] does not mean that its previous position was incorrect’, because the last position was accurately based upon the last measurements.

23. OS also said that after Dr U made her FOI request it checked again that its mapping was accurate. It says it considered the information she submitted to make sure its mapping was correct.

24. To decide whether OS did anything wrong, we looked at what should have happened when Dr U approached it with her concerns. Our Principles say organisations should:

• respond flexibly to the circumstances of the case. This means considering how it may need to adjust its normal approach to handling a complaint • be open and honest when looking at its decisions and actions. It should give clear, evidence-based explanations, and reasons for its decisions • avoid taking a rigid ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to complaint handling and make sure the response is equal to the circumstances. This means taking into account the seriousness of the issues raised, the effect on the complainant and if any others may have been affected by the same problem.

25. OS’s Public Task says that it should ‘create, maintain, and improve’ its maps and geographical data, as well as providing customer support to maximise value.

26. We have seen that once Dr U complained to OS in March 2019, it took her concerns seriously by agreeing to ask an external organisation to do an aerial survey of the river in September 2020, even though OS had surveyed the river in April 2020 as part of its national review.

27. We have also seen that OS willingly communicated with the university, considered its report, and held a meeting with it to check its findings and check for mapping accuracy. We have also seen that OS moved the tidal limit on its map because of the university’s report and the conversations they had. It has clearly explained to Dr U how it considered all the evidence and reached its decision.

28. OS also considered video evidence from Dr U, which led to another review of the Dysynni river mapping.

29. As we have already explained, it is not our role to comment on whether the mapping of the Dysynni river is correct. We are satisfied that OS responded to Dr U’s complaint fairly and in line with our Principles. We can also see that it acted in line with its Public Task in the way it dealt with the complaint. While we appreciate Dr U is unhappy with the outcome of OS’s actions, we have not seen fault in how it considered her concerns.

30. We understand Dr U may find our decision frustrating after all she has been through. We also know that Dr U would like the Dysynni river to be fully surveyed again by OS as she has said there are flaws in its measurements. This is not something we can do for Dr U. Our investigation has focussed only on the way OS handled her complaint and considered the evidence she gave it, and not on the data and measurements used by OS. If Dr U wishes to challenge OS’s measurements and data, then this is something she would have to take through the courts.

1. We are sorry to hear of the stress and worry Dr U experienced while dealing with Ordnance Survey (OS).

2. We have carefully considered Dr U’s complaint and we have seen no sign that anything went seriously wrong. Although we cannot comment on whether the mapping of the Dysynni river (a river in mid Wales) is correct, we have seen that once Dr U complained to OS about this, it acted in line with relevant guidance when handling her complaint.

3. We understand Dr U may find our decision frustrating after all she has been through. We hope this statement clearly explains our decision.