Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 164, Issue 16

[Tony OSM]

What a useful insight into a parentless system.

Tony

On 12/05/2020 18:02, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 21:35 +0100, SK53 wrote:
Its quite possible that this just cannot be done. I believe 
Leicestershire, and consequently Rutland as well, does not use any 
reference to tehe parish in the identifiers used in official 
documents. Instead all paths consist if a letter followed by a 
number. I once tried to extract parishes from this but I dont think 
the identifiers colocate with parish boundaries. Phil Barnes will 
know more.
The Leicestershire and Rutland uses a Zone letter followed by a 
number, there is no connection between path numbers and parish and no 
obvious reason for the zone boundaries. I suspect they were just 
numbered 1-99 and then moved on the the next zone with numbers 100+ 
being paths created later. Until 2011 I assumed that was the normal 
way of things.


Rutland uses the same system which it inherited from Leicestershire, 
Rutland was in Leicestershire zone E hence Rutland paths all have an E 
prefix. Paths crossing the border into Leicestershire have the same 
number in both counties.


The City of Leicester is unique again, its definitive map arrived in 
the 2000s shortly after it became a unitary authority having been 
exempted in the original act. Wrongly in my humble opinion, along with 
other urban areas.


Their scheme uses zone numbers which are deliminated by the radial A 
roads. I do remember seeing this for the first time as part of 
Leicestershire and Rutland Rights of Way Committee and we thought, 
different but it does make sense.



On the whole I also prefer the use of names in identifiers stored on 
OSM. I suspect some of the completely numeric ones represent system 
specific keys.


I suppose I am in a slightly different place to many mappers in that I 
am a Ramblers Rights of Way Officer.


Here in Shropshire we use the more traditional parish scheme.

I do prefer the parish code, there are 202 parishes and I have not 
memorised them all yet but from the first code you can derive the 
division (old district) which gets you into the right area and is a 
big clue to geography.


There could be a place for both schemes however if OSM is to useful 
for communicating with the rights of way department we need to be 
consistent with their usage, including the link number.


The link number changes each time a right of way meets another public 
highway or right of way. Government assessments of the state of rights 
of way are based on the percentage of usable links, and yes I was 
confused when this came up back in Leicestershire, especially as their 
scheme ignores such detail.


Phil (trigpoint)




Jerry

On Mon, 11 May 2020, 20:48 Mike Baggaley, > wrote:
In my view we need to be putting out a consistent UK wide message 
(preferably parish name, type and number) and not confusing 
potential mappers by having different formats in different counties. 
We have enough trouble already with path references variously being 
put in name, ref or local_ref instead of prow_ref, so need a simple 
unambiguous standard.


Regards,
Mike

>Just wanted to add that in my view the other reason to list by 
parish name,
>type and number is that these directly relate to the legal record. 
Parish
>Footpath 11 has usually been Parish Footpath 11 since the 1950s and 
will

>continue to be so unless a formal legal process is followed to change
>something. The numeric references for districts and parishes exist 
only in

>an internal database of relatively recent creation. If 5 years down the
>line the council adopts a new system any numeric references in OSM 
would

>then be meaningless.



___
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


___
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

Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 164, Issue 16

[Philip Barnes]

On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 21:35 +0100, SK53 wrote:
> Its quite possible that this just cannot be done. I believe
> Leicestershire, and consequently Rutland as well, does not use any
> reference to tehe parish in the identifiers used in official
> documents. Instead all paths consist if a letter followed by a
> number. I once tried to extract parishes from this but I dont think
> the identifiers colocate with parish boundaries. Phil Barnes will
> know more.
 The Leicestershire and Rutland uses a Zone letter followed by a
number, there is no connection between path numbers and parish and no
obvious reason for the zone boundaries. I suspect they were just
numbered 1-99 and then moved on the the next zone with numbers 100+
being paths created later. Until 2011 I assumed that was the normal way
of things.
Rutland uses the same system which it inherited from Leicestershire,
Rutland was in Leicestershire zone E hence Rutland paths all have an E
prefix. Paths crossing the border into Leicestershire have the same
number in both counties.
The City of Leicester is unique again, its definitive map arrived in
the 2000s shortly after it became a unitary authority having been
exempted in the original act. Wrongly in my humble opinion, along with
other urban areas. 
Their scheme uses zone numbers which are deliminated by the radial A
roads. I do remember seeing this for the first time as part of
Leicestershire and Rutland Rights of Way Committee and we thought,
different but it does make sense.

> On the whole I also prefer the use of names in identifiers stored on
> OSM. I suspect some of the completely numeric ones represent system
> specific keys.
> 
I suppose I am in a slightly different place to many mappers in that I
am a Ramblers Rights of Way Officer. 
Here in Shropshire we use the more traditional parish scheme. 
I do prefer the parish code, there are 202 parishes and I have not
memorised them all yet but from the first code you can derive the
division (old district) which gets you into the right area and is a big
clue to geography.
There could be a place for both schemes however if OSM is to useful for
communicating with the rights of way department we need to be
consistent with their usage, including the link number. 
The link number changes each time a right of way meets another public
highway or right of way. Government assessments of the state of rights
of way are based on the percentage of usable links, and yes I was
confused when this came up back in Leicestershire, especially as their
scheme ignores such detail.
Phil (trigpoint)


> Jerry
> 
> On Mon, 11 May 2020, 20:48 Mike Baggaley,  wrote:
> > In my view we need to be putting out a consistent UK wide message
> > (preferably parish name, type and number) and not confusing
> > potential mappers by having different formats in different
> > counties. We have enough trouble already with path references
> > variously being put in name, ref or local_ref instead of prow_ref,
> > so need a simple unambiguous standard.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Mike
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >Just wanted to add that in my view the other reason to list by
> > parish name,
> > 
> > >type and number is that these directly relate to the legal record.
> > Parish
> > 
> > >Footpath 11 has usually been Parish Footpath 11 since the 1950s
> > and will
> > 
> > >continue to be so unless a formal legal process is followed to
> > change
> > 
> > >something. The numeric references for districts and parishes exist
> > only in
> > 
> > >an internal database of relatively recent creation. If 5 years
> > down the
> > 
> > >line the council adopts a new system any numeric references in OSM
> > would
> > 
> > >then be meaningless.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > 
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > 
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > 
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> > 
> 
> ___Talk-GB mailing 
> listtalk...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 164, Issue 16

[SK53]

Its quite possible that this just cannot be done. I believe Leicestershire,
and consequently Rutland as well, does not use any reference to tehe parish
in the identifiers used in official documents. Instead all paths consist if
a letter followed by a number. I once tried to extract parishes from this
but I dont think the identifiers colocate with parish boundaries. Phil
Barnes will know more.

On the whole I also prefer the use of names in identifiers stored on OSM. I
suspect some of the completely numeric ones represent system specific keys.

Jerry

On Mon, 11 May 2020, 20:48 Mike Baggaley,  wrote:

> In my view we need to be putting out a consistent UK wide message
> (preferably parish name, type and number) and not confusing potential
> mappers by having different formats in different counties. We have enough
> trouble already with path references variously being put in name, ref or
> local_ref instead of prow_ref, so need a simple unambiguous standard.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> >Just wanted to add that in my view the other reason to list by parish
> name,
> >type and number is that these directly relate to the legal record. Parish
> >Footpath 11 has usually been Parish Footpath 11 since the 1950s and will
> >continue to be so unless a formal legal process is followed to change
> >something. The numeric references for districts and parishes exist only in
> >an internal database of relatively recent creation. If 5 years down the
> >line the council adopts a new system any numeric references in OSM would
> >then be meaningless.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 164, Issue 16

[Mike Baggaley]

In my view we need to be putting out a consistent UK wide message (preferably 
parish name, type and number) and not confusing potential mappers by having 
different formats in different counties. We have enough trouble already with 
path references variously being put in name, ref or local_ref instead of 
prow_ref, so need a simple unambiguous standard.

Regards,
Mike

>Just wanted to add that in my view the other reason to list by parish name,
>type and number is that these directly relate to the legal record. Parish
>Footpath 11 has usually been Parish Footpath 11 since the 1950s and will
>continue to be so unless a formal legal process is followed to change
>something. The numeric references for districts and parishes exist only in
>an internal database of relatively recent creation. If 5 years down the
>line the council adopts a new system any numeric references in OSM would
>then be meaningless.



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