Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref reference table

[Adam Snape]

Hi Tony,

Anybody interested in the scans are welcome to view, use or host them
(subject to the OGL) or suggest somewhere I can upload them. Beware that
the Statements are often brief, outdated or otherwise less useful than
might be imagined. The Survey cards date from circa 1950 and were working
documents and not part of the final definitive legal record.

The links below are the versions of the data I have backed up online. They
do differ very slightly from the original versions supplied by the council
in that I've retitled some of the folders so that they state the name of
the area covered rather than just a number. I could upload the versions
exactly as received from the council if requested.

Statements:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XgJHkDeSrsUnLsVNrGSwmwBqUZ1y8fvd
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government
Licence v3.0

Original Parish Survey Cards:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1l0JxeByzWZSMdboGjCuWCzcg6HtTZiRk
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government
Licence v3.0

Kind regards,

Adam

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 23:44, Tony OSM  wrote:

> Adam, thank you
>
> Anderton and Adlington parishes are next to each other on the ground - a
> good example of read across error which needs to be avoided.
>
> Euxton Parish Council have published a recent LCC notice on their website
> - http://www.euxtoncouncil.org.uk/news.php?id=83
>
> which refers to PUBLIC FOOTPATHS EUXTON 37 & 38, CHORLEY BOROUGH .
>
> Separately on Chorley Borough Council website, a modification order
> https://democracy.chorley.gov.uk/ecSDDisplay.aspx?NAME=SD2280&ID=2280&RPID=6590173
> refers
>
> Add to the Definitive Statement for Croston the following:
>
> Restricted Byway 26 from a junction with Back Drinkhouse Lane at SD 4853
> 1838 running in an approximately easterly direction along an enclosed track
> to pass through bollards at SD 4854 1838 and continuing to terminate at SD
> 4859 1838 at a junction with Drinkhouse Road between properties 17 and 19 
> Drinkhouse
> Road.
> It seems clear that LCC have no formal nomenclature reference rules, so
> the method described by you and your reasoning is that which we in
> Lancashire should adopt.
>
> I'd  like to see the data supplied to you made more widely available - as
> that public availability was part of my original question. I shall send to
> Rob the data I extracted from the data supplied.
>
> Regards
> Tony
>
> On 26/11/2019 21:12, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> Firstly, Tony, I think 9-4 is Anderton and 9-1 is Adlington.
>
> As part of the original FOI/EIR/Re-use request for the GIS dataset, I also
> requested (and was supplied) the council's scanned copies of the Definitive
> Statements along with permission to use them under the OGL. They appear to
> be complete as of when they were scanned (Early 2000s) but don't include
> any subsequent modification orders (like many councils Lancs don't
> frequently update the Map/Statement themselves, the documents have to be
> read in conjunction with any relevant modification orders)..  If Tony or
> anyone else is interested in the Statements I can send a download link. If
> anybody knows anywhere where they could be hosted to be publicly accessible
> in the long term then that would be great. With the statements the Council
> also supplied and OGL licensed scans of the county's surviving original
> parish survey cards which were used as part of the process for drawing up
> the draft definitive maps/statements. The same applies to these (though
> beware that these only cover a fraction of the County (the Rural Districts
> of Lancaster, Fylde, Wigan, West Lancs and Chorley).
>
> The paper Definitive Maps and Statements for Lancashire don't go as far as
> naming the paths or supplying a definitive reference and as Robert
> suspected I've not seen any pre-digitisation records which use anything
> like 9-4-5. Parishes are not numbered on either the map or Statement. Paths
> are numbered individually and colour coded by status on the maps. The
> format varied over time but most of the statements are tabulated by (named)
> parish with column headings 'path number', 'kind of path', 'position',
> 'length', 'any other particulars', there is no section for path name or
> reference, though where the statement for one path it refers to another
> path it is usually in the form of parish, path type, path number.
>
> Whilst there is a pretty much de facto standard when discussing rights of
> way to use the format parish, path type (often abbreviated), path no., I'm
> really not sure we need to be overly bothered about the (perceived)
> formatting preference of each county (I've never heard of a coucnil
> actually having a preference on path referencing format). In this context
> differences in formatting don't change the meaning 'Rivington FP3' is
> synonymous with 'Rivington Footpath 3', is synonymous with 'Public Footpath
> Number 3 in the Parish of Rivington'. It is much more meaningful to hav

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref reference table

[Tony OSM]

Adam, thank you

Anderton and Adlington parishes are next to each other on the ground - a 
good example of read across error which needs to be avoided.


Euxton Parish Council have published a recent LCC notice on their 
website - http://www.euxtoncouncil.org.uk/news.php?id=83


which refers to PUBLIC FOOTPATHS EUXTON 37 & 38, CHORLEY BOROUGH .

Separately on Chorley Borough Council website, a modification order 
https://democracy.chorley.gov.uk/ecSDDisplay.aspx?NAME=SD2280&ID=2280&RPID=6590173 
refers


Add to the Definitive Statement for Croston the following:

Restricted Byway 26 from a junction with Back Drinkhouse Lane at SD 4853 
1838running in an approximately easterly direction along an enclosed 
track to pass through bollards at SD 4854 1838 and continuing to 
terminate at SD 4859 1838 at a junctionwith Drinkhouse Road between 
properties 17 and 19 Drinkhouse Road.


It seems clear that LCC have no formal nomenclature reference rules, so 
the method described by you and your reasoning is that which we in 
Lancashire should adopt.


I'd  like to see the data supplied to you made more widely available - 
as that public availability was part of my original question. I shall 
send to Rob the data I extracted from the data supplied.


Regards
Tony

On 26/11/2019 21:12, Adam Snape wrote:

Hi,


Firstly, Tony, I think 9-4 is Anderton and 9-1 is Adlington.

As part of the original FOI/EIR/Re-use request for the GIS dataset, I 
also requested (and was supplied) the council's scanned copies of the 
Definitive Statements along with permission to use them under the OGL. 
They appear to be complete as of when they were scanned (Early 2000s) 
but don't include any subsequent modification orders (like many 
councils Lancs don't frequently update the Map/Statement themselves, 
the documents have to be read in conjunction with any relevant 
modification orders)..  If Tony or anyone else is interested in the 
Statements I can send a download link. If anybody knows anywhere where 
they could be hosted to be publicly accessible in the long term then 
that would be great. With the statements the Council also supplied and 
OGL licensed scans of the county's surviving original parish survey 
cards which were used as part of the process for drawing up the draft 
definitive maps/statements. The same applies to these (though beware 
that these only cover a fraction of the County (the Rural Districts of 
Lancaster, Fylde, Wigan, West Lancs and Chorley).


The paper Definitive Maps and Statements for Lancashire don't go as 
far as naming the paths or supplying a definitive reference and as 
Robert suspected I've not seen any pre-digitisation records which use 
anything like 9-4-5. Parishes are not numbered on either the map or 
Statement. Paths are numbered individually and colour coded by status 
on the maps. The format varied over time but most of the statements 
are tabulated by (named) parish with column headings 'path number', 
'kind of path', 'position', 'length', 'any other particulars', there 
is no section for path name or reference, though where the statement 
for one path it refers to another path it is usually in the form of 
parish, path type, path number.


Whilst there is a pretty much de facto standard when discussing rights 
of way to use the format parish, path type (often abbreviated), path 
no., I'm really not sure we need to be overly bothered about the 
(perceived) formatting preference of each county (I've never heard of 
a coucnil actually having a preference on path referencing format). In 
this context differences in formatting don't change the meaning 
'Rivington FP3' is synonymous with 'Rivington Footpath 3', is 
synonymous with 'Public Footpath Number 3 in the Parish of Rivington'. 
It is much more meaningful to have national consistency than to 
slavishly following what we imagine to be the formatting preference of 
each individual authority.


Kind regards,

Adam

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, 16:04 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists), 
> wrote:


On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 14:32, Dave F via Talk-GB
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>
> On 26/11/2019 12:01, Tony OSM wrote:
> >  to the preferred prow_ref format  Adlington FP 5.
>
> As previous, this is not the preferred format. The format should
be as
> supplied by the LA, the organisation which has the *authority*
to name
> PROWs.

My reading of the original post is that Tony is saying that the
Council themselves are inconsistent in how they refer to their PRoWs.
In which case, I think we should use the format that is most prevalent
on the underlying legal documents (i.e. the Definitive Map and
Statement) rather than any electronic working datasets that are
produced from these. The onilne map at

https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/
uses the "9-5-FP 23" style numbers, but prob

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref reference table

[Adam Snape]

Hi,


Firstly, Tony, I think 9-4 is Anderton and 9-1 is Adlington.

As part of the original FOI/EIR/Re-use request for the GIS dataset, I also
requested (and was supplied) the council's scanned copies of the Definitive
Statements along with permission to use them under the OGL. They appear to
be complete as of when they were scanned (Early 2000s) but don't include
any subsequent modification orders (like many councils Lancs don't
frequently update the Map/Statement themselves, the documents have to be
read in conjunction with any relevant modification orders)..  If Tony or
anyone else is interested in the Statements I can send a download link. If
anybody knows anywhere where they could be hosted to be publicly accessible
in the long term then that would be great. With the statements the Council
also supplied and OGL licensed scans of the county's surviving original
parish survey cards which were used as part of the process for drawing up
the draft definitive maps/statements. The same applies to these (though
beware that these only cover a fraction of the County (the Rural Districts
of Lancaster, Fylde, Wigan, West Lancs and Chorley).

The paper Definitive Maps and Statements for Lancashire don't go as far as
naming the paths or supplying a definitive reference and as Robert
suspected I've not seen any pre-digitisation records which use anything
like 9-4-5. Parishes are not numbered on either the map or Statement. Paths
are numbered individually and colour coded by status on the maps. The
format varied over time but most of the statements are tabulated by (named)
parish with column headings 'path number', 'kind of path', 'position',
'length', 'any other particulars', there is no section for path name or
reference, though where the statement for one path it refers to another
path it is usually in the form of parish, path type, path number.

Whilst there is a pretty much de facto standard when discussing rights of
way to use the format parish, path type (often abbreviated), path no., I'm
really not sure we need to be overly bothered about the (perceived)
formatting preference of each county (I've never heard of a coucnil
actually having a preference on path referencing format). In this context
differences in formatting don't change the meaning 'Rivington FP3' is
synonymous with 'Rivington Footpath 3', is synonymous with 'Public Footpath
Number 3 in the Parish of Rivington'. It is much more meaningful to have
national consistency than to slavishly following what we imagine to be the
formatting preference of each individual authority.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, 16:04 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists), <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 14:32, Dave F via Talk-GB
>  wrote:
> >
> > On 26/11/2019 12:01, Tony OSM wrote:
> > >  to the preferred prow_ref format  Adlington FP 5.
> >
> > As previous, this is not the preferred format. The format should be as
> > supplied by the LA, the organisation which has the *authority* to name
> > PROWs.
>
> My reading of the original post is that Tony is saying that the
> Council themselves are inconsistent in how they refer to their PRoWs.
> In which case, I think we should use the format that is most prevalent
> on the underlying legal documents (i.e. the Definitive Map and
> Statement) rather than any electronic working datasets that are
> produced from these. The onilne map at
>
> https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/
> uses the "9-5-FP 23" style numbers, but probably doesn't have any
> legal force. I can't find any actual Definitive Statements online for
> Lancashire, but there are what seem to be some Definitive Map extracts
> in their DMMO register at
> http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/dmmoview/ . These mostly look
> to just use the "FP 34", "BW 45" numbers, without an explicit parish.
> My guess would be that the parishes are named in the Definitive Map
> and Statement, rather than using reference numbers (which are probably
> an artefact of digitisation). So unless the council has officially
> adopted the electronic version with the "9-5-FP 23" style numbers as
> it's legal Definitive Map, we should be looking at accepting parish
> names in the official reference numbers. The question then is how does
> the council itself refer to the Rights of Way when using named
> parishes rather than IDs. What is *their* preferred format?
>
> If we can agree on the appropriate prow_ref format to use in OSM, then
> I can load the GIS data into my tool at
> https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/ and have it display the refs in
> the agreed format. Tony, if you've got a CSV file that converts
> between the ID numbers and named districts/parishes that you could
> send me, that would be really helpful, whichever format we end up
> agreeing to use in OSM. It will also automatically produce a table
> like https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/essex/parishes with the
> parish names

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref reference table

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 14:32, Dave F via Talk-GB
 wrote:
>
> On 26/11/2019 12:01, Tony OSM wrote:
> >  to the preferred prow_ref format  Adlington FP 5.
>
> As previous, this is not the preferred format. The format should be as
> supplied by the LA, the organisation which has the *authority* to name
> PROWs.

My reading of the original post is that Tony is saying that the
Council themselves are inconsistent in how they refer to their PRoWs.
In which case, I think we should use the format that is most prevalent
on the underlying legal documents (i.e. the Definitive Map and
Statement) rather than any electronic working datasets that are
produced from these. The onilne map at
https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/
uses the "9-5-FP 23" style numbers, but probably doesn't have any
legal force. I can't find any actual Definitive Statements online for
Lancashire, but there are what seem to be some Definitive Map extracts
in their DMMO register at
http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/dmmoview/ . These mostly look
to just use the "FP 34", "BW 45" numbers, without an explicit parish.
My guess would be that the parishes are named in the Definitive Map
and Statement, rather than using reference numbers (which are probably
an artefact of digitisation). So unless the council has officially
adopted the electronic version with the "9-5-FP 23" style numbers as
it's legal Definitive Map, we should be looking at accepting parish
names in the official reference numbers. The question then is how does
the council itself refer to the Rights of Way when using named
parishes rather than IDs. What is *their* preferred format?

If we can agree on the appropriate prow_ref format to use in OSM, then
I can load the GIS data into my tool at
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/ and have it display the refs in
the agreed format. Tony, if you've got a CSV file that converts
between the ID numbers and named districts/parishes that you could
send me, that would be really helpful, whichever format we end up
agreeing to use in OSM. It will also automatically produce a table
like https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/essex/parishes with the
parish names and numbers for anyone to reference.

Best wishes,

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref reference table

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 26/11/2019 12:01, Tony OSM wrote:

 to the preferred prow_ref format  Adlington FP 5.


As previous, this is not the preferred format. The format should be as 
supplied by the LA, the organisation which has the *authority* to name 
PROWs.
Creating a reference unique to OSM doesn't improve the database's 
quality. The whole point of references (for anything) is that they are 
communicable between all other parties. This 'preferred format' creates 
an echo chamber within OSM where only a few within OSM comprehend its 
meaning.


This 'preferred format' is the equivalent of renaming all UK road 
references (M1, A40 etc) to something like 'Oxford AR 40/5' which, of 
course, no one would suggest doing as it's a really silly idea.


DaveF

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

[Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref reference table

[Tony OSM]

Lancashire PROW data has been made available and is presented on 
http://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/ and http://www.rowmaps.com/


The reference presented is in the style "9-4 5". I have researched and 
analysed the data used by Rowmaps, read Lancashire County Council public 
notices and noted that LCC notices use two formats in their notices, 
they refer to Footpath 9-4-5 and Adlington FP 5 in the map and 
descriptive parts of a notice. Consistency - nil point!
My analysis of the available data shows 9 is Chorley District, 4 is 
Adlington Parish and 5 is the sequence number. My collated list from the 
Rowmap data has the district and parish references and names, so I can 
read across from Rowmaps and MapThePaths to the preferred prow_ref 
format  Adlington FP 5.
I wish to share the data table either as a csv file, as a table in the 
wiki or both - but I need suggestions as to where it should go - in an 
existing wiki page or a new page?

There are 235 data rows in the table.

TonyS999


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