Re: [Talk-GB] Documenting prow_ref formats (Was: MapthePaths & Lancashire)

2018-07-18 Thread Gregory Williams
I think it's Non-Civil Parish.

Sent from Mailspring 
(https://link.getmailspring.com/link/1531978742.local-ca768658-9c97-v1.2.2-96fb3...@getmailspring.com/0?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fgetmailspring.com%2F=VGFsay1HQkBvcGVuc3RyZWV0bWFwLm9yZw%3D%3D),
 the best free email app for work
On Jul 19 2018, at 2:14 am, Andrew Black  wrote:
>
> Surrey seems ot have a format of " Banstead NCP 123A". But existing entries 
> in OSM are "FP 37".
>
> What does NCP mean. I will enter then as f " Banstead FP 37" unless told 
> otherwise!
>
>
>
>
> On 14 July 2018 at 17:27, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
>  (https://link.getmailspring.com/link/1531978742.local-ca768658-9c97-v1.2.2-96fb3...@getmailspring.com/1?redirect=mailto%3Arobert.whittaker%2Bosm%40gmail.com=VGFsay1HQkBvcGVuc3RyZWV0bWFwLm9yZw%3D%3D)>
>  wrote:
> > On 13 July 2018 at 19:26, Andrew Black  > (https://link.getmailspring.com/link/1531978742.local-ca768658-9c97-v1.2.2-96fb3...@getmailspring.com/2?redirect=mailto%3Aandrewdblack%40googlemail.com=VGFsay1HQkBvcGVuc3RyZWV0bWFwLm9yZw%3D%3D)>
> >  wrote:
> > > I am pondering a similar but simpler question. I would like to add a table
> > > listing each authority at 
> > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:prow_ref 
> > > (https://link.getmailspring.com/link/1531978742.local-ca768658-9c97-v1.2.2-96fb3...@getmailspring.com/3?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FKey%3Aprow_ref=VGFsay1HQkBvcGVuc3RyZWV0bWFwLm9yZw%3D%3D)
> > > describing the conventions used.
> >
> > I've been working on something like this already as part of my PRoW
> > Progress/Comparison tool at
> > http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ 
> > (https://link.getmailspring.com/link/1531978742.local-ca768658-9c97-v1.2.2-96fb3...@getmailspring.com/4?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Frobert.mathmos.net%2Fosm%2Fprow%2Fprogress%2F=VGFsay1HQkBvcGVuc3RyZWV0bWFwLm9yZw%3D%3D)
> >  . The tool needs to know
> > the format that's used in each area in order to correctly parse the
> > prow_ref values use in OSM, and to generate Right of Way numbers to
> > display. The formats are stored in my database as a regular expression
> > for parsing and a sprinf format string for generating the output. I've
> > been displaying the formats on the county and parish pages for some
> > time, but I've now added a page showing the formats for each county
> > where one is defined:
> >
> > http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/ref-formats/ 
> > (https://link.getmailspring.com/link/1531978742.local-ca768658-9c97-v1.2.2-96fb3...@getmailspring.com/5?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Frobert.mathmos.net%2Fosm%2Fprow%2Fref-formats%2F=VGFsay1HQkBvcGVuc3RyZWV0bWFwLm9yZw%3D%3D)
> > These are the formats currently used by my tool. They may not always
> > be the best one, as sometimes there didn't seem to be a consistent
> > format in use (either by the Council or in OSM), and so sometimes I've
> > just opted for my default "[Parish Name] [Type] [Number]" style. I can
> > add other counties on request. I'm also more than happy to amend any
> > of the formats already there if there's a consensus amongst local
> > mappers to use something different.
> >
> > One thing to be aware of though, is that the GIS data provided by the
> > councils is usually not the official Definitive Map, but just a
> > working representation of it. Often the council will assign reference
> > numbers to parishes, and segment numbers to the ways that are just for
> > internal convenience, and don't form part of the official PRoW number
> > as defined in the Definitive Map and Statement. My philosophy in the
> > above is to try to stick to the official numbering as used in the
> > Definitive Map and Statement.
> >
> > I plan to add a download of the data at
> > http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/ref-formats/ 
> > (https://link.getmailspring.com/link/1531978742.local-ca768658-9c97-v1.2.2-96fb3...@getmailspring.com/6?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Frobert.mathmos.net%2Fosm%2Fprow%2Fref-formats%2F=VGFsay1HQkBvcGVuc3RyZWV0bWFwLm9yZw%3D%3D)
> >  (probably in JSON
> > format) at some point so anyone else who wants to can make us of this
> > data more easily. I also have CSV files containing parish IDs and
> > names for the counties where it's necessary to do this translation,
> > which I can make available. For those using rowmaps data, sometimes
> > you'll find the parish name in the INFO field, but the presence and
> > format of this varies from county to county.
> >
> > Robert.
> > --
> > Robert Whittaker
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
> > (https://link.getmailspring.com/link/1531978742.local-ca768658-9c97-v1.2.2-96fb3...@getmailspring.com/7?redirect=mailto%3ATalk-GB%40openstreetmap.org=VGFsay1HQkBvcGVuc3RyZWV0bWFwLm9yZw%3D%3D)
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 
> > 

Re: [Talk-GB] Documenting prow_ref formats (Was: MapthePaths & Lancashire)

2018-07-18 Thread Andrew Black
Surrey seems ot have a format of " Banstead NCP 123A".  But existing
entries in OSM are "FP 37".

What does NCP mean. I will enter then as  f " Banstead FP 37" unless told
otherwise!




On 14 July 2018 at 17:27, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13 July 2018 at 19:26, Andrew Black 
> wrote:
> > I am pondering a similar but simpler question. I would like to add a
> table
> > listing each authority at https://wiki.openstreetmap.
> org/wiki/Key:prow_ref
> > describing the conventions used.
>
> I've been working on something like this already as part of my PRoW
> Progress/Comparison tool at
> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ . The tool needs to know
> the format that's used in each area in order to correctly parse the
> prow_ref values use in OSM, and to generate Right of Way numbers to
> display. The formats are stored in my database as a regular expression
> for parsing and a sprinf format string for generating the output. I've
> been displaying the formats on the county and parish pages for some
> time, but I've now added a page showing the formats for each county
> where one is defined:
>
> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/ref-formats/
>
> These are the formats currently used by my tool. They may not always
> be the best one, as sometimes there didn't seem to be a consistent
> format in use (either by the Council or in OSM), and so sometimes I've
> just opted for my default "[Parish Name] [Type] [Number]" style. I can
> add other counties on request. I'm also more than happy to amend any
> of the formats already there if there's a consensus amongst local
> mappers to use something different.
>
> One thing to be aware of though, is that the GIS data provided by the
> councils is usually not the official Definitive Map, but just a
> working representation of it. Often the council will assign reference
> numbers to parishes, and segment numbers to the ways that are just for
> internal convenience, and don't form part of the official PRoW number
> as defined in the Definitive Map and Statement. My philosophy in the
> above is to try to stick to the official numbering as used in the
> Definitive Map and Statement.
>
> I plan to add a download of the data at
> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/ref-formats/ (probably in JSON
> format) at some point so anyone else who wants to can make us of this
> data more easily. I also have CSV files containing parish IDs and
> names for the counties where it's necessary to do this translation,
> which I can make available. For those using rowmaps data, sometimes
> you'll find the parish name in the INFO field, but the presence and
> format of this varies from county to county.
>
> Robert.
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb