Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref

[Kevin Peat]

Dudley,

On 29 March 2013 15:25, Dudley Ibbett  wrote:
> Many Thanks
>
> I'll use the code without the county council letters as this is what is in
> the name tag in JOSM.  I'll debate as to whether to split the path number
> according to the last number as this would require quite a bit of work and
> I've still not mapped all the paths in the parish yet!
>

I have integrated quite a lot of the DCC prow data for South Devon and
a typical example of what I have done tagging wise is:

highway = footway
designation = public_footpath
prow_ref = Chivelstone Footpath 12
source:prow_ref = definitive_statement

I used a perl script to reformat the data beforehand so I could just
copy and paste the tag values in josm as it takes way too long to do
it manually for hundreds of prows.

Kevin

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref

[Barry Cornelius]

I'll use the code without the county council letters as this is what is in the 
name tag in JOSM.  I'll debate as to whether to
split the path number according to the last number as this would require quite 
a bit of work and I've still not mapped all the
paths in the parish yet!


As you refer to http://www.rowmaps.com/kmls/DY/converted.kml
   DY|AV3|3/1
I guess you have grabbed:
   http://www.rowmaps.com/kmls/DY/converted.kml
or:
   http://www.rowmaps.com/kmls/DY/augmented.kml
In order to be consistent across councils, those files have mutations
of the original data.

The file:
   http://www.rowmaps.com/kmls/DY/original.kml
is a non-tampered-with version of Derbyshire's data.

For DY|AV3|3/1, it has:
   AV3/3/1
   AV3/3
   AV3
   3
   1
   Amber Valley
   Ashleyhay
   Footpath

I agree with your decision to remove the "DY".

I think you've also decided not to include the Parish.  But if you change 
your mind, then do what Rob Nickerson said in his e-mail:

   add the reference in the same format as used by the Local Authority

I think this means choose either:
   AV3/3
or:
   Ashleyhay FP 3
as I think that will be what's on Derbyshire's online map.

So there are no occurrences of the | character!

--
Barry Cornelius
http://www.northeastraces.com/
http://www.thehs2.com/
http://www.rowmaps.com/
http://www.oxonpaths.com/
http://www.barrycornelius.com/___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref

[Dudley Ibbett]

Many Thanks

I'll use the code without the county council letters as this is what is in the 
name tag in JOSM.  I'll debate as to whether to split the path number according 
to the last number as this would require quite a bit of work and I've still not 
mapped all the paths in the parish yet!

Dudley



> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:01:52 +
> From: barrycorneliu...@gmail.com
> To: dudleyibb...@hotmail.com
> CC: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref
> 
> > Is it going to be OK for me to use this map to put the prow_ref numbers into
> > OSM?  I assume the base map is OS and subject to their copyright but the
> > numbers appear to have been penned on.  I will only use it for the numbers
> > and not for drawing anything else. 
> 
> The Council provides an online map at:
> http://derbyshiremaps.derbyshire.gov.uk/launch_portal.asp?
> 
> From that source, you can get details about a PROW, e.g.:
> Prow label:   Sutton cum Duckmanton FP 19
> Routecode:NE18/19/1
> Parish:   Sutton cum Duckmanton
> Prow status:  Footpath
> Prow number:  19 
> I'm not sure about the licensing of this information.
> 
> Steven mentioned my web site:
> http://www.rowmaps.com
> I've been using the FOI Act to request data about public rights of way 
> from councils.  Often a council will have this data in an ESRI Shape File 
> or MapInfo files.  So far I have seen data from 52 councils.  Whenever I 
> get new data from a council, I update the wiki page:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_local_councils
> All the data I receive from councils is released with an Open licence.
> 
> I convert this data into KML and GeoJSON.  One reason for doing this is 
> that I use the GeoJSON on my web site in order to display public rights of 
> way on maps from the Ordnance Survey, OpenStreetMap, Google or Bing. 
> This works seamlessly across council boundaries.
> 
> As far as Derbyshire is concerned, I've obtained some MapInfo files. 
> These have been released with the Ordnance Survey OpenData licence:
> 
> http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/docs/licences/os-opendata-licence.pdf
> 
> The data I obtained from Derbyshire is available from:
> http://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/DY/
> 
> I have converted the MapInfo files into KML:
> http://www.rowmaps.com/kmls/DY/
> and released the KML with the Ordnance Survey OpenData licence:
> 
> In particular, from the file:
> http://www.rowmaps.com/kmls/DY/original.kml
> you can get:
> NE18/19/1
> NE18/19
> NE18
> 19
> 1
> North-East Derbyshire
> Sutton cum Duckmanton
> Footpath
> 
> I would recommend tagging with either:
> Sutton cum Duckmanton FP 19
> or:
> NE18/19/1
> as this is what is used on Derbyshire's online map.
> 
> -- 
> Barry Cornelius
> http://www.northeastraces.com/
> http://www.thehs2.com/
> http://www.rowmaps.com/
> http://www.oxonpaths.com/
> http://www.barrycornelius.com/
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref

[Dudley Ibbett]

As suggested I've downloaded the kml file for Derbyshire and found a plugin to 
view it in JOSM.  The paths have a code DY|AV3|3/1 for example.  It would seem 
County Council=Derbyshire (DY), Borough Council= Amber Valley (AV).  The number 
3 appears to relate to the parish.  (i.e. it changes as you change parish 
boundary.  The last two numbers related to the path.  The first one appears to 
correspond to the numbers I have on my map (30-40 in each parish) but it also 
appears they segment the path with the last number.  I don't mind splitting 
paths (ways) to the first number but it would be a lot of work to the last 
level.  i.e. where there are currently 30-40 ways it could turn into 3-4 times 
this.

I guess the only debate is whether to use the whole number or drop the DY|AV3| 
given that in theory these area already mapped.  i.e. county, borough, parish, 
although the latter is a namer rather than a number.  Presumably there is no 
harm in using the whole and having a degree of data redundancy.

So,  should it be DY|AV3|3 or 3?

It is useful data as it has highlighted a path that I didn't know existed near 
to me so I will need to go and explore.  I'm not sure I would use it for 
actually mapping as it doesn't seem to correspond to what is on the ground in 
some cases having had a quick look around the parish.  I presume it hasn't been 
imported for this reason.  Has anyone developed any tools to highlight missing 
paths in OSM using this data?

Many Thanks

Dudley

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:32:22 +
From: rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref

The conclusion seemed to be to add the reference in the same format as used by 
the Local Authority. Some include the parish name, some also include FP for 
"footpath" etc. As your data is from a Parish level it's unclear whether the 
Local Authority will include the parish name before any numbers - are the 
numbers small (1, 2, 3) or up in the hundreds?


Where are you looking (geographically)?

Rob


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref

[Barry Cornelius]

Is it going to be OK for me to use this map to put the prow_ref numbers into
OSM?  I assume the base map is OS and subject to their copyright but the
numbers appear to have been penned on.  I will only use it for the numbers
and not for drawing anything else. 


The Council provides an online map at:
   http://derbyshiremaps.derbyshire.gov.uk/launch_portal.asp?


From that source, you can get details about a PROW, e.g.:

   Prow label:  Sutton cum Duckmanton FP 19
   Routecode:   NE18/19/1
   Parish:  Sutton cum Duckmanton
   Prow status: Footpath
   Prow number:	19 
I'm not sure about the licensing of this information.


Steven mentioned my web site:
   http://www.rowmaps.com
I've been using the FOI Act to request data about public rights of way 
from councils.  Often a council will have this data in an ESRI Shape File 
or MapInfo files.  So far I have seen data from 52 councils.  Whenever I 
get new data from a council, I update the wiki page:

   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_local_councils
All the data I receive from councils is released with an Open licence.

I convert this data into KML and GeoJSON.  One reason for doing this is 
that I use the GeoJSON on my web site in order to display public rights of 
way on maps from the Ordnance Survey, OpenStreetMap, Google or Bing. 
This works seamlessly across council boundaries.


As far as Derbyshire is concerned, I've obtained some MapInfo files. 
These have been released with the Ordnance Survey OpenData licence:

   
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/docs/licences/os-opendata-licence.pdf

The data I obtained from Derbyshire is available from:
   http://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/DY/

I have converted the MapInfo files into KML:
   http://www.rowmaps.com/kmls/DY/
and released the KML with the Ordnance Survey OpenData licence:

In particular, from the file:
   http://www.rowmaps.com/kmls/DY/original.kml
you can get:
   NE18/19/1
   NE18/19
   NE18
   19
   1
   North-East Derbyshire
   Sutton cum Duckmanton
   Footpath

I would recommend tagging with either:
   Sutton cum Duckmanton FP 19
or:
   NE18/19/1
as this is what is used on Derbyshire's online map.

--
Barry Cornelius
http://www.northeastraces.com/
http://www.thehs2.com/
http://www.rowmaps.com/
http://www.oxonpaths.com/
http://www.barrycornelius.com/
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref

[Rob Nickerson]

The conclusion seemed to be to add the reference in the same format as used
by the Local Authority. Some include the parish name, some also include FP
for "footpath" etc. As your data is from a Parish level it's unclear
whether the Local Authority will include the parish name before any numbers
- are the numbers small (1, 2, 3) or up in the hundreds?

Where are you looking (geographically)?

Rob
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref

[Steven Horner]

Hello,

I am still not clear of the outcome of how to add the references to OSM,
there doesn't appear to be any standard format across each local authority.

A better source for the data is probably www.rowmaps.com Derbyshire data is
available from there, it's released under an OS Open Data licence so it can
be used.

regards,
Steven


On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Dudley Ibbett wrote:

> I have managed to get hold of a couple of maps from our Parish Council
> with the prow reference numbers written on them.  The map itself is marked
> as not to be photo copied and appears to have been issued by Derbyshire
> County Council.  It dates back to 2004.
>
> Is it going to be OK for me to use this map to put the prow_ref numbers
> into OSM?  I assume the base map is OS and subject to their copyright but
> the numbers appear to have been penned on.  I will only use it for the
> numbers and not for drawing anything else.
>
> When it comes to adding the numbers I actually have two maps as the PC
> covers two Parishes so the numbers are repeated.  I have read a suggestion
> somewhere that you could add the first letters of the parish before the
> number as a prow reference number.  Has there been any consensus on this.
> i.e. are we just adding the number.  The Parish boundaries are in OSM so
> you can determine the parish related to the number.
>
> Many Thanks
>
> Dudley
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>


-- 
www.stevenhorner.com  
 @stevenhorner 
 0191 645 2265
 stevenhorner
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref

[Dudley Ibbett]

I have managed to get hold of a couple of maps from our Parish Council with the 
prow reference numbers written on them.  The map itself is marked as not to be 
photo copied and appears to have been issued by Derbyshire County Council.  It 
dates back to 2004.  

Is it going to be OK for me to use this map to put the prow_ref numbers into 
OSM?  I assume the base map is OS and subject to their copyright but the 
numbers appear to have been penned on.  I will only use it for the numbers and 
not for drawing anything else.  

When it comes to adding the numbers I actually have two maps as the PC covers 
two Parishes so the numbers are repeated.  I have read a suggestion somewhere 
that you could add the first letters of the parish before the number as a prow 
reference number.  Has there been any consensus on this.  i.e. are we just 
adding the number.  The Parish boundaries are in OSM so you can determine the 
parish related to the number.

Many Thanks

Dudley
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Named street shown as missing on ITO OSM analysis

[Donald Noble]

Thanks - It should indeed be name = Columbia Terrace

I knew I had done something stupid, but couldn't see it for looking!

It is only really a parking area, hence why I tagged it as service rather
than residential


On 29 March 2013 11:29, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> Should it be name = Columbia Terrace. The service tag is used for the type
> of service road, i.e. driveway.
>
>
> Am wondering if highway = residential, motor_vehicle = private would be
> better?
>
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Sent from my Nokia N9
>
>
>
> On 29/03/2013 10:36 Donald Noble wrote:
> Hullo all,
>
> Wondering if anyone can shed any light on this. I added a street/name
> following a survey a couple of weeks ago, but it is still showing as
> missing on the ITO OSM analysis map.
>
> See:
> http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/map_browser?bbox=276130,800720,276384,800951&referrer=area
>
> Which should be: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/210073170
>
> I think the row of houses is Columba Terrace, so I have added it to the
> addr:street and also to the service lane at the back, but neither seem to
> be being picked up.
>
> Is this just a glitch, has the ITO analysis not updated recently, or have
> I done something silly?
>
> Cheers, Donald
>
> --
> Donald Noble
> http://drnoble.co.uk - http://flickr.com/photos/drnoble
>
>


-- 
Donald Noble
http://drnoble.co.uk - http://flickr.com/photos/drnoble
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Named street shown as missing on ITO OSM analysis

[Philip Barnes]

Should it be name = Columbia Terrace. The service tag is used for the type of 
service road, i.e. driveway.

Am wondering if highway = residential, motor_vehicle = private would be better?

Phil (trigpoint)

--

Sent from my Nokia N9



On 29/03/2013 10:36 Donald Noble wrote:

Hullo all,


Wondering if anyone can shed any light on this. I added a street/name following 
a survey a couple of weeks ago, but it is still showing as missing on the ITO 
OSM analysis map.


See: 
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/map_browser?bbox=276130,800720,276384,800951&referrer=area


Which should be: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/210073170


I think the row of houses is Columba Terrace, so I have added it to the 
addr:street and also to the service lane at the back, but neither seem to be 
being picked up.


Is this just a glitch, has the ITO analysis not updated recently, or have I 
done something silly?


Cheers, Donald


--
Donald Noble
http://drnoble.co.uk - http://flickr.com/photos/drnoble

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Named street shown as missing on ITO OSM analysis

[Kevin Peat]

Donald,

On 29 March 2013 10:36, Donald Noble  wrote:
> Hullo all,
>
> Wondering if anyone can shed any light on this. I added a street/name
> following a survey a couple of weeks ago, but it is still showing as missing
> on the ITO OSM analysis map.
>

Should be "name = Columba Terrace" not "service = Columba Terrace"

Kevin

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Named street shown as missing on ITO OSM analysis

[Donald Noble]

Hullo all,

Wondering if anyone can shed any light on this. I added a street/name
following a survey a couple of weeks ago, but it is still showing as
missing on the ITO OSM analysis map.

See:
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/map_browser?bbox=276130,800720,276384,800951&referrer=area

Which should be: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/210073170

I think the row of houses is Columba Terrace, so I have added it to the
addr:street and also to the service lane at the back, but neither seem to
be being picked up.

Is this just a glitch, has the ITO analysis not updated recently, or have I
done something silly?

Cheers, Donald

-- 
Donald Noble
http://drnoble.co.uk - http://flickr.com/photos/drnoble
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb