Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

[Richard Fairhurst]

Barry Cornelius wrote:
> Robert Whittaker wrote:
> > I wouldn't have thought that listing the authority would be 
> > that useful -- you should be able to work that out from the 
> > county that the way resides in.
> My view is that it would be useful to include the id of the council 
> as I do not think it's obvious which authority is involved.  For 
> example, the data for Devon does not include Torbay.

I agree with Robert. OSM is a geographic database. We should (and do) have
boundary polygons for Devon County Council, Torbay Council (unitary
authority), and so on. Finding out which authority is responsible for the
path is simply a matter of querying the database to find out whether a
point/line is within this polygon. Many sites using OSM data already do this
sort of query as a matter of course.

As a general principle, we optimise for the mapper. Mappers are our most
important resource, therefore we make it as easy as possible for them to
enter the data, and minimise the 'barriers to entry' - tagging rules they
have to learn before they can enter data. One way we can do this is by
reducing unnecessary duplication - such as entering tags when in fact the
information can be inferred from a boundary polygon.

By analogy, we don't tag roads as ref=A361, operator=Devon County Council.
In line with the principle of optimising for the mapper, we only tag the
exceptions, which in this case are Strategic Roads (ref=A38,
operator=Highways Agency).

cheers
Richard





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Re-Guidance-for-adding-PRoW-to-OSM-prow-ref-tp5742085p5742800.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

[Steven Horner]

I've been looking at Durham records online (not available to download) they
are recorded like below:

Status: BW
Parish: Crook
Path Number: 37
Path Ref Number: 028037

The long reference number identifies the Parish (first part) and the path
number (last part) or I believe that's how it is made up from checking
different areas.

If sticking with one PROW code then I guess either prow_ref or prow:ref. I
used prow_ref.
If multiple codes are to be used then to my mind it would make sense to use.

prow:ref
prow:parish
prow:authority




On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Barry Cornelius  wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:47:34 Steven Horner 
> wrote:
>
>> I have followed the guidelines
>> at http://wiki.openstreetmap.**org/wiki/United_Kingdom_**
>> Tagging_Guidelines
>>  but
>> should I tag the footpath with the local authority reference which would
>> aid
>> logging the path to the Council if problems like FixMyPaths, if so how?
>>
>
> Although I cannot add anything useful to the discussion about prow:ref and
> prow_ref, I do have some thoughts about the content of the tag.
>
> Often the data a council provides about a PROW includes duplication.  For
> example, often the parish is given as a nice friendly name and also as a
> number.  Here's an example of the data given about a PROW that is provided
> by Devon County Council (both council and PROW chosen at random):
>Abbots Bickington
>Footpath
>1
>0
>801FP1
>Abbots Bickington Footpath 1
>
> So the id of the parish appears three times (twice as a name and once
> as a number); the number of the path appears three times; and the fact
> that it is a footpath appears three times.
>
> For this, I guess you've got a choice betwen using the contents of CODE or
> NUMBER1. I would recommend choosing whatever appears on the Council's
> interactive map.  Devon County Council uses the contents of the NUMBER1
> field, i.e.:
>Abbots Bickington Footpath 1
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 16:36:53 Craig Loftus 
> >
> wrote:
>
>> Is it wise to preclude adding more tags to the namespace? As an example,
>> one
>> additional tag that occurs to me is "prow:operator" (or
>> "prow:authority"), to
>> describe the local authority the references 'belong' to.
>>
>
> On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:35:31 Robert Whittaker  *com > wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't have thought that listing the authority would be that
>> useful -- you should be able to work that out from the county that the
>> way resides in.
>>
>
> My view is that it would be useful to include the id of the council as I
> do not think it's obvious which authority is involved.  For example, the
> data for Devon does not include Torbay.  And Bedfordshire is provided by
> two councils: Bedford and Central Bedfordshire.  Gloucestershire is
> provided by the councils of Gloucestershire and South Gloucestershire.
>
> For my web site (www.rowmaps.com), I've chosen to use the two letter
> codes that are used by the OS Opendata 1:50 000 Scale Gazetteer:
>http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.**uk/oswebsite/products/50k-**
> gazetteer/index.html
>
> The two letter code is in field 12 of their colon-separated file.  There
> are 208 different values.  Fields 13 and 14 of that file also provide short
> names and long names.
>
> Here are some examples of fields 12, 13 and 14:
>BF:Beds:Bedford
>BK:C Beds:Central Bedfordshire
>DN:Devon:Devon
>DU:Durham:Durham
>GR:Glos:Gloucestershire
>SG:S Glos:South Gloucestershire
>TB:Torbay:Torbay
>
> Either you bundle the id of the council in with the name of the PROW as in:
>Devon Abbots Bickington Footpath 1
>
> Or as suggested by Craig you could provide it in a separate tag - he was
> suggesting "prow:operator" or "prow:authority".
>
> All of the data for councils that I've seen specify the parish in which
> the PROW appears.  So, really there are three separate pieces of
> information:
>id of council
>id of parish
>id of PROW
> e.g.,:
>Devon
>Abbots Bickington
>Footpath 1
> or:
>DN
>801
>FP1
>
> --
> 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
>
>


-- 
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] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

[Rob Nickerson]

I did wonder whether someone would ask something like that!

On "name=", I would avoid this because people do not refer to e.g. "Abbots
Bickington Footpath 1" in general conversation (although perhaps that’s
because we never knew the names until the Local Authorities started to
release the data).

In regards to "prow_name" and "prow_ref" my concern is that each Local
Authority uses differing conventions. In the example of Devon they have
provided a reference in both parish ID and parish Name format. Not all do
this. For those that just release e.g. "Acle FP1" then would this be a
prow_name or a prow_ref...? Due to this confusion, I suggest sticking with
the "dominant" reference (used on the Local Authoritiy's map) as suggested
by Barry, but lets see what the others think.

Rob




On 4 January 2013 17:04, Ed Loach  wrote:

> Not that Essex have released their data, so I’ve not had to worry about
> this, but wouldn’t this be an argument for prow_ref and prow_name? Or even
> prow_ref and name?
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Rob Nickerson [mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 04 January 2013 17:01
> *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=
>
> ** **
>
> I agree that if there is a choice for prow_ref such as:
>
> 801FP1
>
> Abbots Bickington Footpath 1
>
> ** **
>
> then I would use the same as the councils interactive map. If this isn't
> possible I would prefer written parish names rather than codes. That is
> prow_ref=Abbots Bickington Footpath 1
>
> Rob
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

[Rob Nickerson]

I agree that if there is a choice for prow_ref such as:

801FP1
Abbots Bickington Footpath 1


then I would use the same as the councils interactive map. If this isn't
possible I would prefer written parish names rather than codes. That is
prow_ref=Abbots Bickington Footpath 1

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

[Barry Cornelius]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:47:34 Steven Horner  wrote:

I have followed the guidelines
at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines but
should I tag the footpath with the local authority reference which would aid
logging the path to the Council if problems like FixMyPaths, if so how?


Although I cannot add anything useful to the discussion about prow:ref and 
prow_ref, I do have some thoughts about the content of the tag.


Often the data a council provides about a PROW includes duplication.  For 
example, often the parish is given as a nice friendly name and also as a 
number.  Here's an example of the data given about a PROW that is provided 
by Devon County Council (both council and PROW chosen at random):

   Abbots Bickington
   Footpath
   1
   0
   801FP1
   Abbots Bickington Footpath 1

So the id of the parish appears three times (twice as a name and once
as a number); the number of the path appears three times; and the fact that 
it is a footpath appears three times.


For this, I guess you've got a choice betwen using the contents of CODE or 
NUMBER1. I would recommend choosing whatever appears on the Council's 
interactive map.  Devon County Council uses the contents of the NUMBER1 
field, i.e.:

   Abbots Bickington Footpath 1

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 16:36:53 Craig Loftus  wrote:

Is it wise to preclude adding more tags to the namespace? As an example, one
additional tag that occurs to me is "prow:operator" (or "prow:authority"), to
describe the local authority the references 'belong' to.


On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:35:31 Robert Whittaker  
wrote:

I wouldn't have thought that listing the authority would be that
useful -- you should be able to work that out from the county that the
way resides in.


My view is that it would be useful to include the id of the council as I 
do not think it's obvious which authority is involved.  For example, the 
data for Devon does not include Torbay.  And Bedfordshire is provided by 
two councils: Bedford and Central Bedfordshire.  Gloucestershire is 
provided by the councils of Gloucestershire and South Gloucestershire.


For my web site (www.rowmaps.com), I've chosen to use the two letter codes 
that are used by the OS Opendata 1:50 000 Scale Gazetteer:

   http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/products/50k-gazetteer/index.html

The two letter code is in field 12 of their colon-separated file.  There 
are 208 different values.  Fields 13 and 14 of that file also provide 
short names and long names.


Here are some examples of fields 12, 13 and 14:
   BF:Beds:Bedford
   BK:C Beds:Central Bedfordshire
   DN:Devon:Devon
   DU:Durham:Durham
   GR:Glos:Gloucestershire
   SG:S Glos:South Gloucestershire
   TB:Torbay:Torbay

Either you bundle the id of the council in with the name of the PROW as 
in:

   Devon Abbots Bickington Footpath 1

Or as suggested by Craig you could provide it in a separate tag - he was 
suggesting "prow:operator" or "prow:authority".


All of the data for councils that I've seen specify the parish in which 
the PROW appears.  So, really there are three separate pieces of 
information:

   id of council
   id of parish
   id of PROW
e.g.,:
   Devon
   Abbots Bickington
   Footpath 1
or:
   DN
   801
   FP1

--
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] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

[Gregory Williams]

> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
> [mailto:robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 02 January 2013 11:23
> To: talk-gb
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=
> 
> On 31 December 2012 16:38, David Groom  wrote:
> > Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a
> > few hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of
> > prow:ref, I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the
> > wiki) would have been the better option.
> 
> Do you remember what figures were you looking at?
> 
> The taginfo data I'm looking at today at
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=prow_ref is dated as
> "2013-01-02 00:58 UTC" and shows 670 uses of prow_ref, versus only 361 of
> prow:ref. Have things changed that much in a couple of days?
>

Sorry that's probably mainly down to me, but I never got round to emailing
this list. After reading the email the other day pointing out that prow_ref
is more in keeping with things like old_ref and int_ref and that prow:ref
implied a prow namespace I was inclined to agree. As somebody that's put in
quite a few prow:ref tags I went and changed them to prow_ref, but got
interrupted before I could send a quick email to the list.

Gregory


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 31 December 2012 16:38, David Groom  wrote:
> Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a few
> hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of prow:ref,
> I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the wiki) would have
> been the better option.

Do you remember what figures were you looking at?

The taginfo data I'm looking at today at
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=prow_ref is dated as
"2013-01-02 00:58 UTC" and shows 670 uses of prow_ref, versus only 361
of prow:ref. Have things changed that much in a couple of days?

Robert.

PS: I've just converted a number of ref=* to prow_ref=* on Rights of
Way that I originally tagged with ref=*. But these changes were only
made today and so are not included in the above taginfo numbers. (I
figured that even if prow_ref isn't going to be the final name for the
key, this change will make is simpler to change to the final value at
a later date.)

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 1 January 2013 16:30, Craig Loftus  wrote:
>> 1/ prow:ref suggests some sort of name-spacing, but we haven't
>> actually developed any tagging scheme that makes use of a prow:*
>> name-space. So currently prow:ref  would be the only tag used.
>
> Is it wise to preclude adding more tags to the namespace? As an example, one
> additional tag that occurs to me is "prow:operator" (or "prow:authority"),
> to describe the local authority the references 'belong' to.

I wouldn't have thought that listing the authority would be that
useful -- you should be able to work that out from the county that the
way resides in. Apart from something like prow:type (for which we
already have the established designation=* tag) nothing else springs
to mind as being Rights of Way specific. If anything else is found, I
don't see a problem in having a later proposal to introduce a set of
prow:* tags and in the process change from prow_ref to prow:ref. So I
don't think it's necessary to use prow:ref "just in case" at this
stage.

> I agree source:prow:ref looks ugly, but I am not clear what is ambiguous
> about it?

Is it the source for prow:ref or is it a ref value somehow relating to
a source:prow namespace? Granted this particular tag is probably not
likely to be mis-interpreted, so this is only a very weak reason.
Ugliness was my main concern here. (The subtle issue is using using :
for both namespaces and recording sources, which have slightly
different semantics, but it's too late to do anything about this in
OSM now I fear.)

>> 3/ prow_ref mirrors other ref types in use, such as bridge_ref,
>> route_ref, ncn_ref, and local_ref, which are generally used rather
>> than the alternative colon separated versions.
>
> This seems like an appeal to popularity; one could point to tree:ref or some
> other *:ref.

There's a difference between appealing to popularity on a
non-established tag where numbers are likely to be decided by a small
number of mappers who happen to have chosen one over another for a
variety of reasons, some of which may just be copying any other
instance they found. As opposed to looking at well-established tags
(and patterns of tags) which are widely used and would now be very
difficult to change.

If you look at the numbers of uses in taginfo, you'll see that *_ref
is much more widely used than *:ref. For example, there are only four
*:ref keys with over 10k instances, and two of them are source:ref (or
a derivative thereof), which is arguably different. There are 15
different keys for *_ref with over 10k uses.

Anyway, that's more of an explanation of why I think prow_ref would be
preferable. If other uses are found for a prow namespace I might be
convinced to change my mind. We do need to settle on one tag to use
though, and I'll be happy to go with whatever consensus emerges. I'd
suggest we ask the others who have been making use of either prow_ref
or prow:ref (or even just ref=*, as I did originally) on Rights of Way
for their opinions and their reasons for choosing the one they did.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 31 December 2012 16:38, David Groom  wrote:
> Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a few
> hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of prow:ref,
> I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the wiki) would have
> been the better option.

Setting aside the issues of popularity, my preference would be for
prow_ref rather than prow:ref for a few reasons:

1/ prow:ref suggests some sort of name-spacing, but we haven't
actually developed any tagging scheme that makes use of a prow:*
name-space. So currently prow:ref  would be the only tag used.

2/ "source:prow_ref" doesn't have the ambiguity / ugliness that
"source:prow:ref" has. (Ssince the reference numbers aren't often
recorded on the ground, it's probably useful to record the source.)

3/ prow_ref mirrors other ref types in use, such as bridge_ref,
route_ref, ncn_ref, and local_ref, which are generally used rather
than the alternative colon separated versions.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Nickerson" 

To: 
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=



Arg! We were converging on "prow_ref" when I last looked at tag info a few
months back. Perhaps I should have checked before changing the wiki!!

Seeing that I have now updated the wiki (and it really doesn't make a 
shred

of difference) does anyone have an issue if I change the existing
"prow:ref" s to "prow_ref" whilst we are still at low numbers of these 
tags?



Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a few 
hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of prow:ref, 
I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the wiki) would have 
been the better option.


David


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] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

[Rob Nickerson]

Arg! We were converging on "prow_ref" when I last looked at tag info a few
months back. Perhaps I should have checked before changing the wiki!!

Seeing that I have now updated the wiki (and it really doesn't make a shred
of difference) does anyone have an issue if I change the existing
"prow:ref" s to "prow_ref" whilst we are still at low numbers of these tags?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

[Rob Nickerson]

After 2026 a public right of way will only exist if it appears on the Local
Authorities "Definitive Map". This means that irrespective of what is on
the ground, the legal right of way is that shown on the legal Definitive
Map.

What does this mean for OSM:

* As noted "designation=public_footpath" is *only* used if it's a PRoW. Tag
based on the Definitive Map (if open data), and the waymarkers on the
ground.

* For all other paths and all areas where the Definitive Map does not match
with the real world, please use "suspected:designation=public_footpath" (or
suspected:designation=row). You may also want to keep a written record. We
can then collate this information and pass it back to the relevant Local
Authority (you can of course do this now).

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_access_provisions

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

[Rob Nickerson]

Apologies that this was never added to the wiki page, but you are correct
we discussed prow:ref and prow_ref. I believe tag info suggests we are
converging more on prow_ref=* so will update the wiki to reflect this.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_access_provisions#Public_Rights_of_Way

Regards,
Rob

p.s. please use prow_ref for the public right of way reference number that
the local council holds.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

[SomeoneElse]

Dudley Ibbett wrote:
Please be careful with the ™doesn't actually exist™ as the owner may 
not have maintained the access point in the hope that people will stop 
using the path. I've seen this on a number of occasions.


If there's something visible on the ground then I'd definitely map it, 
even if it's only a path from a road to a vandalised finger post:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/197598505

If there's really no sign of a path, and no means of access due to e.g. 
a hedge that someone has deliberately planted to prevent access then 
there's not a "highway=footway" to add to OSM (although there may be a 
"designation=public_footpath, source:designation=some local council list").


I would investigate further and raise it with the PRoWO.  I believe 
there is a deadline coming up for identifying all PRoWs, so it is 
worth checking.




As I read it, that date is 1st Jan 2026:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/section/53#text%3D2026

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/section/56#text%3D2026

but that's for identifying footpaths and bridleways currently NOT 
currently on the definitive map.  I'm not aware that things that already 
are on there (even if illegally blocked on the ground) could magically 
lose their status just because they're still blocked on the ground in 2026.


Cheers,
Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

[Steven Horner]

Thanks Andy that's what I was looking for. The job of adding footpaths,
bridleways and byways gets more complicated if we want it to be as accurate
as possible. The prow=ref obviously isn't needed but good to have if it's
known.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

[Steven Horner]

Andy raised several good points regarding tagging and references but not
sure I would agree about ignoring paths if not existing on the ground.
Officially if a path exists on the Definitive map then you have the right
to walk it, this is the information I was given by the PRoW team when I
became a volunteer ranger years ago in County Durham. As part of that I
adopted several paths I agreed to walk and report any problems.

Dudley is correct regarding a deadline, a few months ago I wrote a post
regarding some local footpaths and this mentions the deadline:
http://stevenhorner.com/blog/2012/06/06/kittys-wood-public-rights-of-way/
I have seen lots of paths that are PRoW that have been blocked off and/or
diverted usually without notifying the local Council. You can report these
and I would encourage everyone to do this or you will lose them.

Andy: I can see in the link you mentioned where the track isn't marked on
the ground, it is marked on OS Maps, not the one around the edge. From
looking at both Bing & Google satellites it does look like a fainter track
does exist at the location and the more obvious one skirts the edge. A more
interesting example of the differences between on the ground and recorded
PRoW exists here (just NE of your link):
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.91864&lon=-0.77876&zoom=17&layers=M
The actual recorded PRoW  (byway) as shown by OS cuts the corner slightly,
but is shown as not being visible on the ground (the PRoW Byway route is
not recoreded on OSM). The green lines on Explorer maps only show that a
PRoW exists, it is only visible on the ground if it has black dashed lines
under it.

To my mind it would be good if somehow via tags OSM could do something
similar.
designation: public_footpath is only used if it's a PRoW, if it's not
tagged as such then it's not an official PRoW. That is how I understood it
to be used. The surface tag possibly shows if it exists on the ground but
not very reliably because you may tag as grass but is it visible.


Steven


On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Steven Horner wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have been adding to OSM for about 18 months but more active in recent
> weeks. I have requested the PRoW from Durham County Council, they currently
> have not released their data but do have it electronically, just
> not publicly available to download yet. Their response was more postive
> than I expected they were looking into it already and were hoping to have a
> more official response before Xmas (haven't yet).
>
> I have added several footpaths locally but I am often left wondering how
> to tag these or how to break them into sections. I have followed the
> guidelines at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines but
> should I tag the footpath with the local authority reference which would
> aid logging the path to the Council if problems like 
> FixMyPaths,
> if so how?
>
> The other question is do I add the footpath exactly as the Council &
> Ordnance Survey have recorded it or amend it, if I know it is incorrect on
> the ground. Currently I have added it as per my own GPX tracks and local
> knowledge which is more accurate, but officially the PRoW isn't recorded as
> I have added it to OSM. Do I continue as I have, add both tagged
> differently or some other way?
>
> Finally should I split the path I have added if it is recorded as
> two separate paths on the definitive maps. I'm sure this must of been
> discussed somewhere before and I have missed it?
>
> *PRoW from OS:*
> I read Bill Chadwick's mention of hopefully one day the OS would release
> national paths as Open Data. I don't think that will happen soon, as part
> of the OS Insight program they were recently testing a new product that
> included all footpaths in vector format. This will be a commercial product,
> so unlikely they will be releasing it as Open Data themselves.
>
> Thanks
> Steven
>
> --
> www.stevenhorner.com  
>  @stevenhorner 
>
>


-- 
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] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

[SomeoneElse]

David Groom wrote:



Last time this was discussed on the list I think we favoured prow:ref

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2012-June/013424.html




Yes - well remembered - there are indeed lots more of those:

http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=prow_ref

Cheers,
Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: "SomeoneElse" 

To: 
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM



Steven Horner wrote:


I have added several footpaths locally but I am often left wondering
how to tag these or how to break them into sections. I have followed
the guidelines at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines but
should I tag the footpath with the local authority reference which
would aid logging the path to the Council if problems like FixMyPaths
<http://www.free-map.org.uk/hampshire/>, if so how?



First things first, I'd definitely go out and survey them.  The OS
hasn't surveyed these paths (if at all) for years, and important details
such as the path surface and which side of a hedge it runs often aren't
recorded.  That'll create a series of ways within OSM, broken up by e.g.
surface changes and whenever there's a bridge. I'd also add
"designation=public_footpath", of course.

Previously I would have taken that designation to mean "Someone has been
there and can verify that there is a public footpath sign", although if
people are going to import footpath information from councils without
survey then perhaps we all ought to be adding "source:designation" as 
well?


Personally I'm not convinced by adding reference numbers that don't
exist on any signs (some, but very few, authorities put them there).  If
you can't refer to it anywhere, it's not exactly a reference number, is 
it*?


I notice in taginfo that there are 10 "footpath_ref" and 2
"source:footpath_ref" already.  Perhaps something would that would do?
Personnaly, if I was going to add "footpath_ref" I'd definitely add
"source:footpath_ref" to make it clear where it came from.


Last time this was discussed on the list I think we favoured prow:ref

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2012-June/013424.html

David





The other question is do I add the footpath exactly as the Council &
Ordnance Survey have recorded it or amend it, if I know it is
incorrect on the ground. Currently I have added it as per my own GPX
tracks and local knowledge which is more accurate, but officially the
PRoW isn't recorded as I have added it to OSM. Do I continue as I
have, add both tagged differently or some other way?



I'd definitely tag what's on the ground.  If there's a path that people
use, add that as highway=footway (or whatever).  If there's a public
footpath sign pointing down it, add "designation=public_footpath".

If the "public footpath" sign points in a different direction to the
path that everyone uses, I'd tag both.  Here's one I found in
Leicestershire:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=52.915121&lon=-0.783637&zoom=18

If the local authority or the OS have some path route that isn't marked
on the ground, I personnally probably wouldn't bother adding it, since
it doesn't actually exist.


Finally should I split the path I have added if it is recorded as
two separate paths on the definitive maps. I'm sure this must of been
discussed somewhere before and I have missed it?



If you use something like "footpath_ref" then you'll have to do this,
but of course you'll probably split into much smaller segments anyway
when you take into account surface changes, bridges, etc.


Cheers
Andy

* I have exactly the same issue with people adding reference numbers
(from who knows where) to C roads.  The only effect surely is to confuse
foreign visitors.










___
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] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

[Dudley Ibbett]

Please be careful with the ™doesn't actually exist™ as the owner may not have 
maintained the access point in the hope that people will stop using the path. 
I've seen this on a number of occasions.  I would investigate further and raise 
it with the PRoWO.  I believe there is a deadline coming up for identifying all 
PRoWs, so it is worth checking.

Dudley

SomeoneElse  wrote:

Steven Horner wrote:
>
> I have added several footpaths locally but I am often left wondering
> how to tag these or how to break them into sections. I have followed
> the guidelines at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines but
> should I tag the footpath with the local authority reference which
> would aid logging the path to the Council if problems like FixMyPaths
> , if so how?
>

First things first, I'd definitely go out and survey them.  The OS
hasn't surveyed these paths (if at all) for years, and important details
such as the path surface and which side of a hedge it runs often aren't
recorded.  That'll create a series of ways within OSM, broken up by e.g.
surface changes and whenever there's a bridge. I'd also add
"designation=public_footpath", of course.

Previously I would have taken that designation to mean "Someone has been
there and can verify that there is a public footpath sign", although if
people are going to import footpath information from councils without
survey then perhaps we all ought to be adding "source:designation" as well?

Personally I'm not convinced by adding reference numbers that don't
exist on any signs (some, but very few, authorities put them there).  If
you can't refer to it anywhere, it's not exactly a reference number, is it*?

I notice in taginfo that there are 10 "footpath_ref" and 2
"source:footpath_ref" already.  Perhaps something would that would do?
Personnaly, if I was going to add "footpath_ref" I'd definitely add
"source:footpath_ref" to make it clear where it came from.

> The other question is do I add the footpath exactly as the Council &
> Ordnance Survey have recorded it or amend it, if I know it is
> incorrect on the ground. Currently I have added it as per my own GPX
> tracks and local knowledge which is more accurate, but officially the
> PRoW isn't recorded as I have added it to OSM. Do I continue as I
> have, add both tagged differently or some other way?
>

I'd definitely tag what's on the ground.  If there's a path that people
use, add that as highway=footway (or whatever).  If there's a public
footpath sign pointing down it, add "designation=public_footpath".

If the "public footpath" sign points in a different direction to the
path that everyone uses, I'd tag both.  Here's one I found in
Leicestershire:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=52.915121&lon=-0.783637&zoom=18

If the local authority or the OS have some path route that isn't marked
on the ground, I personnally probably wouldn't bother adding it, since
it doesn't actually exist.

> Finally should I split the path I have added if it is recorded as
> two separate paths on the definitive maps. I'm sure this must of been
> discussed somewhere before and I have missed it?
>

If you use something like "footpath_ref" then you'll have to do this,
but of course you'll probably split into much smaller segments anyway
when you take into account surface changes, bridges, etc.


Cheers
Andy

* I have exactly the same issue with people adding reference numbers
(from who knows where) to C roads.  The only effect surely is to confuse
foreign visitors.


___
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] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

[SomeoneElse]

Steven Horner wrote:


I have added several footpaths locally but I am often left wondering 
how to tag these or how to break them into sections. I have followed 
the guidelines at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines but 
should I tag the footpath with the local authority reference which 
would aid logging the path to the Council if problems like FixMyPaths 
, if so how?




First things first, I'd definitely go out and survey them.  The OS 
hasn't surveyed these paths (if at all) for years, and important details 
such as the path surface and which side of a hedge it runs often aren't 
recorded.  That'll create a series of ways within OSM, broken up by e.g. 
surface changes and whenever there's a bridge. I'd also add 
"designation=public_footpath", of course.


Previously I would have taken that designation to mean "Someone has been 
there and can verify that there is a public footpath sign", although if 
people are going to import footpath information from councils without 
survey then perhaps we all ought to be adding "source:designation" as well?


Personally I'm not convinced by adding reference numbers that don't 
exist on any signs (some, but very few, authorities put them there).  If 
you can't refer to it anywhere, it's not exactly a reference number, is it*?


I notice in taginfo that there are 10 "footpath_ref" and 2 
"source:footpath_ref" already.  Perhaps something would that would do?  
Personnaly, if I was going to add "footpath_ref" I'd definitely add 
"source:footpath_ref" to make it clear where it came from.


The other question is do I add the footpath exactly as the Council & 
Ordnance Survey have recorded it or amend it, if I know it is 
incorrect on the ground. Currently I have added it as per my own GPX 
tracks and local knowledge which is more accurate, but officially the 
PRoW isn't recorded as I have added it to OSM. Do I continue as I 
have, add both tagged differently or some other way?




I'd definitely tag what's on the ground.  If there's a path that people 
use, add that as highway=footway (or whatever).  If there's a public 
footpath sign pointing down it, add "designation=public_footpath".


If the "public footpath" sign points in a different direction to the 
path that everyone uses, I'd tag both.  Here's one I found in 
Leicestershire:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=52.915121&lon=-0.783637&zoom=18

If the local authority or the OS have some path route that isn't marked 
on the ground, I personnally probably wouldn't bother adding it, since 
it doesn't actually exist.


Finally should I split the path I have added if it is recorded as 
two separate paths on the definitive maps. I'm sure this must of been 
discussed somewhere before and I have missed it?




If you use something like "footpath_ref" then you'll have to do this, 
but of course you'll probably split into much smaller segments anyway 
when you take into account surface changes, bridges, etc.



Cheers
Andy

* I have exactly the same issue with people adding reference numbers 
(from who knows where) to C roads.  The only effect surely is to confuse 
foreign visitors.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

[Steven Horner]

Barry: I applied on Nov 28th but contacted the PRoW team who I have some
contact with, I received the below response on Dec 10th. It's good to read
they have made some progress and applied for an exemption. Do you have any
thoughts on how you would tag the paths if adding to OSM as I mentioned.

I was just looking at the data you have up on your website when your reply
came in ;-)

Steven

*Re: Digital PROW information***



At present we don't supply the digital information other than direct people
to the online Definitive Map.



We are aware of the Government's Open Data project and we (in conjunction
with DCC's GIS people) are looking into the possiblility of making the data
available in alternative ways.



We hope to have sorted something out regarding our policy either this week
or early next week.  I can let you know as soon as I do.



regards

Leigh Coulson

Access & Rights of Way


On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Barry Cornelius <
barrycorneliu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012, Steven Horner wrote:
>
>> I have been adding to OSM for about 18 months but more active in recent
>> weeks. I have requested the PRoW from Durham County Council, they
>> currently
>> have not released their data but do have it electronically, just
>> not publicly available to download yet. Their response was more postive
>> than
>> I expected they were looking into it already and were hoping to have a
>> more
>> official response before Xmas (haven't yet).
>>
>
> I've also applied to Durham County Council for their dataset containing
> details of their PROWs.  I did this on December 6th.  As you say they've
> been positive.  They updated me on December 18th saying that they had
> applied for an exemption from the Ordnance Survey but they thought it
> possible that they would not get this before the Christmas holidays.
>
> --
> Barry Cornelius
> http://www.northeastraces.com/
> http://www.thehs2.com/
> http://www.rowmaps.com/
> http://www.oxonpaths.com/
> http://www.barrycornelius.com/




-- 
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] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

[Barry Cornelius]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012, Steven Horner wrote:

I have been adding to OSM for about 18 months but more active in recent
weeks. I have requested the PRoW from Durham County Council, they currently
have not released their data but do have it electronically, just
not publicly available to download yet. Their response was more postive than
I expected they were looking into it already and were hoping to have a more
official response before Xmas (haven't yet).


I've also applied to Durham County Council for their dataset containing 
details of their PROWs.  I did this on December 6th.  As you say they've 
been positive.  They updated me on December 18th saying that they had 
applied for an exemption from the Ordnance Survey but they thought it 
possible that they would not get this before the Christmas holidays.


--
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

[Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

[Steven Horner]

Hello,

I have been adding to OSM for about 18 months but more active in recent
weeks. I have requested the PRoW from Durham County Council, they currently
have not released their data but do have it electronically, just
not publicly available to download yet. Their response was more postive
than I expected they were looking into it already and were hoping to have a
more official response before Xmas (haven't yet).

I have added several footpaths locally but I am often left wondering how to
tag these or how to break them into sections. I have followed the
guidelines at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines but
should I tag the footpath with the local authority reference which would
aid logging the path to the Council if problems like
FixMyPaths,
if so how?

The other question is do I add the footpath exactly as the Council &
Ordnance Survey have recorded it or amend it, if I know it is incorrect on
the ground. Currently I have added it as per my own GPX tracks and local
knowledge which is more accurate, but officially the PRoW isn't recorded as
I have added it to OSM. Do I continue as I have, add both tagged
differently or some other way?

Finally should I split the path I have added if it is recorded as
two separate paths on the definitive maps. I'm sure this must of been
discussed somewhere before and I have missed it?

*PRoW from OS:*
I read Bill Chadwick's mention of hopefully one day the OS would release
national paths as Open Data. I don't think that will happen soon, as part
of the OS Insight program they were recently testing a new product that
included all footpaths in vector format. This will be a commercial product,
so unlikely they will be releasing it as Open Data themselves.

Thanks
Steven

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