Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 at 09:02, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > > Maybe we should develop some sort of (crowd-sourced?) service which looks > > up parishes based on parish codes to allow easy contribution of descriptive > > prow_refs? > > I've started an effort in that direction at > https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/ref-formats/ . FWIW, in Merton (London Borough) I'm using the format "Merton FP 86". The numbering seems to be unique across the borough, not parish. Stephen ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 15:34, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > I wasn't familiar with the situation in Dorset but MapThePaths uses the 'SE > 4/22' scheme (actually it appears as 'SE 4 22') so if people want to use MTP > as a source for prow_refs, then that would be the format to use. In general, I think that tools (mine included) should follow agree tagging, rather than the tagging following the tools. > In terms of how I arrive at the references, I sourced the data from the > rowmaps site and applied a script which looked for a particular field (I > forget its name) in the rowmaps data. This is done consistently across all > counties. Unfortunately, my experience of the rowmaps data itself is that it's not really consistent in what it puts in its fields. (That's not rowmap's fault though -- Barry is just using whatever formats arrive in the data his tool consumes. > I don't really mind too much what people use to be honest, obviously > something like 'Studland FP 1' or similar would be more descriptive, but > would require an extra step to look up the parish name. > > Maybe we should develop some sort of (crowd-sourced?) service which looks up > parishes based on parish codes to allow easy contribution of descriptive > prow_refs? I've started an effort in that direction at https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/ref-formats/ . For each county in the list there's a regular expression for parsing the prow_ref tag, and a printf format for outputting a prow_ref tag from structured data. This is then what my PRoW tool uses internally. I'm in the process of adding the parish name/id lookup tables that I've collected to this page. There's a JSON feed with the data to make it easier for others to use it too. > On the other hand some counties do not use parish refs at all in hhe number, > though they do mention them in the full ref (e.g. FERNHURST 1254). The > Chichester district of West Sussex (not OGL, by the way - unfortunately from > my POV as it's an area I'm interested in) appears to use a simple number for > all PROW refs, ranging from about 1-3500. This is not consistent in a given > parish, e.g. numbers between 1200-1299 appear to be spread between Fernhurst, > Lynchmere and Milland parishes. Warwickshire is a bit like this too. It seems they numbered their Rights of Way within each former district/borough. When this happens, in my tool I treat these areas as "parishes". See e.g. https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/warks/north-warks/atherstone-rural-district/ Best wishes, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way
>Based on this, my preference would be to standardise on the "SE4/22" >style format for the prow_ref in Dorset, and convert any other >instances found to this. What does everyone else think? I'll invite >Nick Whitelegg (who developed the "map the paths" site) and also a few >mappers who've made significant contributions to Dorset PRoW's in OSM >to this thread to get their input too. Hello Robert, I wasn't familiar with the situation in Dorset but MapThePaths uses the 'SE 4/22' scheme (actually it appears as 'SE 4 22') so if people want to use MTP as a source for prow_refs, then that would be the format to use. In terms of how I arrive at the references, I sourced the data from the rowmaps site and applied a script which looked for a particular field (I forget its name) in the rowmaps data. This is done consistently across all counties. I don't really mind too much what people use to be honest, obviously something like 'Studland FP 1' or similar would be more descriptive, but would require an extra step to look up the parish name. Maybe we should develop some sort of (crowd-sourced?) service which looks up parishes based on parish codes to allow easy contribution of descriptive prow_refs? On the other hand some counties do not use parish refs at all in hhe number, though they do mention them in the full ref (e.g. FERNHURST 1254). The Chichester district of West Sussex (not OGL, by the way - unfortunately from my POV as it's an area I'm interested in) appears to use a simple number for all PROW refs, ranging from about 1-3500. This is not consistent in a given parish, e.g. numbers between 1200-1299 appear to be spread between Fernhurst, Lynchmere and Milland parishes. Nick From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) Sent: 16 April 2020 14:18 To: talk-gb Subject: [Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way I've recently been looking at increasing the coverage of my PRoW comparison tool https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/ by adding new counties. In particular, I've been looking at the data from Dorset. I've hit a small issue though, in that the council uses two different formats for their Right of Way Numbers. We really need to just select one for the county in order to be consistent in OSM. One format has a parish code followed by a slash and then the route number within the parish (e.g. "SE4/22" for path number 22 in Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle parish). The other would be to use the full parish name, right of way type, and number. I asked their Definitive Map officer about this and got the response: "Both systems are used in parallel. For mapping (where the status and parish are obvious) and for internal use, we use the numbering system, but when reporting to Committee members or members of the public who will not be familiar with the numbering system, we name the parish and describe the status. Our sealed statements are listed by named parish, status and route number. Our working statement spreadsheet uses parish number, status and route number." The "SE4/22" style numbers are what are used on Dorset Council's own online map at https://www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/countryside-coast-parks/rights-of-way/rights-of-way-map-where-to-walk-ride-or-cycle.aspx . Currently in OSM we have about 394km of routes in Dorset using this style in the prow_ref tag, and another 98km using this style with a space instead of the slash. That a total of around 492km based on the parish codes and numbers. Conversely, there's only around 125km of routes in Dorset that have a prow_ref tag that includes a parish name. Based on this, my preference would be to standardise on the "SE4/22" style format for the prow_ref in Dorset, and convert any other instances found to this. What does everyone else think? I'll invite Nick Whitelegg (who developed the "map the paths" site) and also a few mappers who've made significant contributions to Dorset PRoW's in OSM to this thread to get their input too. Best wishes, 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
Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way
Hi Rob There is a very similar state in Lancashire, I can imagine the Lancashire officer providing a very similar response to that from Dorset. Dorset are saying that their definitive statement is listed by named parish, status and route number. I believe that as the public definitive reference is named parish, status and route number then that should be what is in OSM, using number references looks to me like an internal workaround for earlier computers and spreadsheets. Using named parish, status and route number also makes it easier to use on maps - eg Andy Townsends https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=13&lat=53.6423&lon=-2.5975 Regards and mapsafe Tony Shield TonyS999 On 16/04/2020 14:18, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: I've recently been looking at increasing the coverage of my PRoW comparison tool https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/ by adding new counties. In particular, I've been looking at the data from Dorset. I've hit a small issue though, in that the council uses two different formats for their Right of Way Numbers. We really need to just select one for the county in order to be consistent in OSM. One format has a parish code followed by a slash and then the route number within the parish (e.g. "SE4/22" for path number 22 in Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle parish). The other would be to use the full parish name, right of way type, and number. I asked their Definitive Map officer about this and got the response: "Both systems are used in parallel. For mapping (where the status and parish are obvious) and for internal use, we use the numbering system, but when reporting to Committee members or members of the public who will not be familiar with the numbering system, we name the parish and describe the status. Our sealed statements are listed by named parish, status and route number. Our working statement spreadsheet uses parish number, status and route number." The "SE4/22" style numbers are what are used on Dorset Council's own online map at https://www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/countryside-coast-parks/rights-of-way/rights-of-way-map-where-to-walk-ride-or-cycle.aspx . Currently in OSM we have about 394km of routes in Dorset using this style in the prow_ref tag, and another 98km using this style with a space instead of the slash. That a total of around 492km based on the parish codes and numbers. Conversely, there's only around 125km of routes in Dorset that have a prow_ref tag that includes a parish name. Based on this, my preference would be to standardise on the "SE4/22" style format for the prow_ref in Dorset, and convert any other instances found to this. What does everyone else think? I'll invite Nick Whitelegg (who developed the "map the paths" site) and also a few mappers who've made significant contributions to Dorset PRoW's in OSM to this thread to get their input too. Best wishes, Robert. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format
On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 13:57 +, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > the RoW within that area.) > > FYI: AFAIK, the value in rowmaps isn't supposed to be a ref for use > in > OSM, and has been deliberately standardised to suit the author's aims > and database structure. The initial two characters are a code for the > county, while the digit after the final slash is a segment number to > distinguish GIS objects with identical other parts of the key. What's > in the middle has been extracted from the council-supplied GIS file > in > some way. In terms of OSM's prow_ref key, I think the county-code and > segment numbers should both be neglected. We don't add either to road > reference numbers for example, despite the latter being likely to > appear in GIS files. > > Robert Please do not ignore the segment numbers, these are in the ROW world called links and certainly in the Shropshire case are taken directly from the GIS data. They are not something made up by rowmaps. Each link has a unique reference and when mapping I do split the paths at these point. A link being when it intersects with a road or another right of way. These are important when reporting path issues and whilst not essential using them does save the overloaded rights of way teams time. The parish code format is in my view preferable to the colloquial name that is probably used on the definitive map, but that is something we will only consult if there is a legal dispute. The GIS data is the day to day data and is mostly correct. Most of us do not have the time to look at the definitive map during working hours. The colloquial name can easily be generated from the code, which also gives far more information to those of us using it regularly. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format
On 6 November 2017 13:45:15 GMT+00:00, Andy Townsend wrote: >On 06/11/2017 13:34, Philip Barnes wrote: >> I don't believe that the type is needed as it can be derived from the > >> designation tag. > >... provided that someone hasn't caused that to be lost somehow >(perhaps >by merging ways by mistake). :) > >Also there are examples of paths on the border between two areas that >had or have one designation in one authority and a different one in >another.. Lots of those, especially where they cross the border into Wales. Paths in Shropshire change reference when they cross a parish boundary and each link also has a unique reference. You can also derive the former district from the parish code too and it also avoids confusion where there are duplicate or similar names. Phil (trigpoint) > >Best Regards, >Andy > > >___ >Talk-GB mailing list >Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format
On 6 November 2017 at 13:23, Mike Evans wrote: > On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 12:46:34 + > Rob Nickerson wrote: > >> Mike wrote: >> >> > A typical code is "PB|SP29|4/1" >> >> Be warned, this is not the format that Pembrokeshire use on the pdf scans >> on their website. It seems to be GIS data only and may be a format Barry >> made. > > Indeed so. ON the PDF it's referenced as "SP29/4" In this case I would go for prow_ref=SP29/4 as the Council appears to have a clear and unambiguous reference format in use on its Definitive Map. (My view might change if the Definitive Statement used some other scheme, and then I'd have to decide between the two.) Since there's a clear format I'd use that, and not artificially add parish names or types to it. (My guess would be that the "SP29" is some sort of area/parish/map sheet code, and the "4" is the traditional number of the RoW within that area.) FYI: AFAIK, the value in rowmaps isn't supposed to be a ref for use in OSM, and has been deliberately standardised to suit the author's aims and database structure. The initial two characters are a code for the county, while the digit after the final slash is a segment number to distinguish GIS objects with identical other parts of the key. What's in the middle has been extracted from the council-supplied GIS file in some way. In terms of OSM's prow_ref key, I think the county-code and segment numbers should both be neglected. We don't add either to road reference numbers for example, despite the latter being likely to appear in GIS files. Also, for Pembrokeshire, note that according to http://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/PB/ , the GIS data was only released under the "Ordnance Survey OpenData Licence", which isn't compatible with use in OSM. I disagree with the subsequent statement there, which implies that OS's statement automatically allows any OS-ODL licensed data to now be used under the OGL. My view is that the actual rights holders would have to re-license the data, as OS can't make that decision for them. So IMO to use Pembrokeshire's data from rowmaps in OSM, we'd need to get an additional permission/licence from Pembrokeshire Council. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format
On 06/11/2017 13:34, Philip Barnes wrote: I don't believe that the type is needed as it can be derived from the designation tag. ... provided that someone hasn't caused that to be lost somehow (perhaps by merging ways by mistake). :) Also there are examples of paths on the border between two areas that had or have one designation in one authority and a different one in another.. Best Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format
On 6 November 2017 at 11:13, Dave F wrote: > I'm unsure why or how often "altered reference format" happens, but would be > a LA internal matter & irrelevant to OSM. I haven't looked in detail at that many Authorities, but I would guess that if you see a numeric parish code in the GIS data, then it's likely to be an "altered reference format", as the legal documents (written years ago, before computer systems) are unlikely to make use of such numbers. (Unless of course an Authority has done a bulk re-numbering of all their Rights of Way at some point.) My view is that we should be basing our prow_ref on official the legal names from the legal documents (The Definitive Map and Statement) and not an internal code that's been assigned later by the Authority as a database key in a non-Definitive database. > We should be using the references > provided to us under OGL even if "different LAs use different reference > styles and with different degrees of consistency" or there's "obviously > different de facto standard in use by an LA". As I said before, I think it's important to note that the GIS data provided by the authorities is generally not the official legal record of their Public Rights of Way. So to determine the most appropriate reference format to use in OSM, I think we should be looking instead at the Definitive Map and Statement, and basing what we use on what's in use there. > OSM can't use any other format used by LA's if not issued under OGL. I don't think that's strictly correct. We could use a different format (on the grounds that the format itself isn't copyrightable), and it would be ok to convert OGL-licensed refs/data to such a format provided it could be done using only suitably-licensed data. In any case, we often have the Definitive Statements under the OGL, in which case, we could make use of whatever referencing system (typically based on named parishes) is used there. > OSM has to use a reference that relates to other databases. Concocting our > own makes these paths impossible to be "uniformly interpreted and > processed". AFAICS "Parish FP 12" isn't a "common standard"? Apart from BOAT -> BY, it's exactly what Suffolk now uses in its Definitive Statements, and also exactly what Norfolk uses in its GIS data. (The Norfolk Definitive Statement isn't structured data, but still uses the same elements for the identifier -- each parish is a named heading, and then there's a sub-heading for each RoW of the form "Footpath 12". So apart from abbreviating the type, it's basically the same format.) As different counties obviously do very different things, perhaps it would be better to discuss some specifics. Is there a particular county/authority where you think there's a better prow_ref format that OSM should be using instead of what other mappers are using at the moment? Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format
I don't believe that the type is needed as it can be derived from the designation tag. As a regular user of rights of way references to report problems to my local highway authority I can vouch that the parish code based GIS reference is far easier to use than the colloquial reference suggested by the wiki. The wiki method also neglects the vital link number included in the GIS reference. Phil (trigpoint) On 6 November 2017 12:46:34 GMT+00:00, Rob Nickerson wrote: >Mike wrote: > >> A typical code is "PB|SP29|4/1" > >Be warned, this is not the format that Pembrokeshire use on the pdf >scans >on their website. It seems to be GIS data only and may be a format >Barry >made. > >PB is "Pembrokeshire"! > >As Pembrokeshire don't use parish names I'd go for prow_ref="FP >SP29/4/1" >assuming this is a footpath. > >Thanks, >Rob > > > >On 6 Nov 2017 12:30 p.m., "Rob Nickerson" >wrote: > >> Dave, >> >> I think the point was that nobody has a common format. Some LAs use a >> different style when they refer to the same path in the definitive >> statement when compared to the GIS data. >> >> Of course we can manipulate OGL data. That's included in the licence. >If >> we do change then it should be obvious to the LA what we mean if we >speak >> with them. >> >> I will be sticking with the wiki for any I map as this has been >previously >> discussed and has therefore grown traction according to taginfo. >> >> For Leicestershire it seems to be an obvious change: they don't >include >> Parish so just don't include it. So I'd map prow_ref="FP J16" as an >example. >> >> P.s. I thought folks usually don't like to add third party database >> references to OSM. Hence we came to an agreement of how prow_ref >should be >> *constructed* based on OGL data (not just a copy of one of the third >party >> attribute values). >> >> Thanks, >> Rob >> -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 12:46:34 + Rob Nickerson wrote: > Mike wrote: > > > A typical code is "PB|SP29|4/1" > > Be warned, this is not the format that Pembrokeshire use on the pdf scans > on their website. It seems to be GIS data only and may be a format Barry > made. Indeed so. ON the PDF it's referenced as "SP29/4" > > PB is "Pembrokeshire"! > > As Pembrokeshire don't use parish names I'd go for prow_ref="FP SP29/4/1" > assuming this is a footpath. The FP part seems redundant as it's already tagged as a footpath elsewhere however, "FP SP29/4" would be correct I guess. Cheers Mike > > Thanks, > Rob > > > > On 6 Nov 2017 12:30 p.m., "Rob Nickerson" wrote: > > > Dave, > > > > I think the point was that nobody has a common format. Some LAs use a > > different style when they refer to the same path in the definitive > > statement when compared to the GIS data. > > > > Of course we can manipulate OGL data. That's included in the licence. If > > we do change then it should be obvious to the LA what we mean if we speak > > with them. > > > > I will be sticking with the wiki for any I map as this has been previously > > discussed and has therefore grown traction according to taginfo. > > > > For Leicestershire it seems to be an obvious change: they don't include > > Parish so just don't include it. So I'd map prow_ref="FP J16" as an example. > > > > P.s. I thought folks usually don't like to add third party database > > references to OSM. Hence we came to an agreement of how prow_ref should be > > *constructed* based on OGL data (not just a copy of one of the third party > > attribute values). > > > > Thanks, > > Rob > > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format
Mike wrote: > A typical code is "PB|SP29|4/1" Be warned, this is not the format that Pembrokeshire use on the pdf scans on their website. It seems to be GIS data only and may be a format Barry made. PB is "Pembrokeshire"! As Pembrokeshire don't use parish names I'd go for prow_ref="FP SP29/4/1" assuming this is a footpath. Thanks, Rob On 6 Nov 2017 12:30 p.m., "Rob Nickerson" wrote: > Dave, > > I think the point was that nobody has a common format. Some LAs use a > different style when they refer to the same path in the definitive > statement when compared to the GIS data. > > Of course we can manipulate OGL data. That's included in the licence. If > we do change then it should be obvious to the LA what we mean if we speak > with them. > > I will be sticking with the wiki for any I map as this has been previously > discussed and has therefore grown traction according to taginfo. > > For Leicestershire it seems to be an obvious change: they don't include > Parish so just don't include it. So I'd map prow_ref="FP J16" as an example. > > P.s. I thought folks usually don't like to add third party database > references to OSM. Hence we came to an agreement of how prow_ref should be > *constructed* based on OGL data (not just a copy of one of the third party > attribute values). > > Thanks, > Rob > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format
On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 11:51:48 + Philip Barnes wrote: > On 6 November 2017 11:13:23 GMT+00:00, Dave F > wrote: > > > >On 05/11/2017 10:42, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > >> On 4 November 2017 at 17:49, Dave F > >Are any LAs, that you've looked at, not including parish codes within > >their refs? > > Leicestershire don't use parish codes, they use a letter number format i.e. > J93. > SNIP > > Phil (trigpoint) Pembrokeshire doesn't either. A typical code is "PB|SP29|4/1" No parish, just a code representing...something. Mike Evans (lostmike) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format
On 05/11/2017 12:42, Rob Nickerson wrote: >I recommended BY for consistency with the other two-letter >abbreviations (FP, BR, RB) that were more universal. +1 Given that there is little internal consistency within each LA and that these are rarely even marked on the ground, my preference would be to stick with the standard as described on the wiki unless this does not fit with a LA. "internal consistency within each LA" has no relevance to OSM. A 'standard' isn't a standard if it *only* relates within OSM. Finally, I understand that FP etc can be determined from the designation tag but I do not see this as a reason to omit the data. It is useful to the end user, just as the M in ref=M1 is for motorways!! You miss the point. 'M1' *is* the ref issued by Highways England & is added to OSM as such. We should do the same for prow_refs as issued by LAs (even if they each have a different format). What the wiki says is the equivalent of manipulating 'M1' so it reads something like 'Yorkshire/Rob/MW1' So, in summary, can't we just stick to what we previously agreed Has it been discussed anywhere other than the one in 2013? and diverge only when this clearly doesn't work for a participial LA (or which I expect that to be very rare). The wiki manipulation recommendation doesn't work for any LA (or indeed, anybody) as it's unique to OSM. Cheers DaveF --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format
On 6 November 2017 11:13:23 GMT+00:00, Dave F wrote: > >On 05/11/2017 10:42, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: >> On 4 November 2017 at 17:49, Dave F Are any LAs, that you've looked at, not including parish codes within >their refs? Leicestershire don't use parish codes, they use a letter number format i.e. J93. The letters refer to zones and path numbers do not change at parish boundaries. Can't remember exactly what the City of Leicester does, but the scheme is zoned using the radial primaries. Rutland is probably based on what it inherited from Leicestershire, but I can't remember the details. I had never come across the parish path number format until I moved to Shropshire. The number uses parish code, path number and link number. There are also differences in parish names used by the county council and OS. The format provided by rowmaps does seem to match the path number formats I have used to communicate with rights of way departments, give or take a | or a hyphen or a slash. I would favour sticking with these formats, the parish name path number format is a bit colloquial and whilst useful when reporting back to the group committee the code is far more useful. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format
On 05/11/2017 10:42, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: On 4 November 2017 at 17:49, Dave F wrote: I've started adding Prow_ref=* to the paths within my Local Authority. I've been using the format as decided by them. I noticed another mapper has already added a few, but using the format by Barry Cornelius at rowmaps.com. I think this shouldn't be used as it's Barry's own concoction. As the LA is the organisation someone would most likely converse with about PROWs, it seemed sensible to use the format issued by them. It makes verification of any updates *much* easier. I'd agree with that. However, one should be careful about drawing conclusions about what the LA's official referencing system actually is. The legal record of Rights of Way is held in the Definitive Map and Statement, whereas we may well be using an electronic representation of the definitive map for our mapping. In translating the data to their computer systems, the LA may have altered the reference format from that used on the Definitive Map. As others have already noted, there are also inconsistencies in how an LA itself will refer to their own paths. I'm unsure why or how often "altered reference format" happens, but would be a LA internal matter & irrelevant to OSM. We should be using the references provided to us under OGL even if "different LAs use different reference styles and with different degrees of consistency" or there's "obviously different de facto standard in use by an LA". OSM can't use any other format used by LA's if not issued under OGL. OSM has to use a reference that relates to other databases. Concocting our own makes these paths impossible to be "uniformly interpreted and processed". AFAICS "Parish FP 12" isn't a "common standard"? I've had a conversation with someone at my LA about a FHRS establishment. I was able to indicate precisely & immediately which restaurant by using the FHRS:ID number which was include in OSM directly, *without* alteration, from their database. I would not be able to do that for the equivalent footpath using OSM's wiki recommendations. Are any LAs, that you've looked at, not including parish codes within their refs? But I would agree that we need to allow different formats to be used for different LAs. Good to hear. Cheers DaveF --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format
Hi, I agree with what Robert has said and think he has clarified many points admirably. I think we need to be clear that in many cases what we will be recording under prow_ref is a working reference used in the council's GIS system, not part of the definitive official record of rights of way. Colin asked about unparished areas. Where people refer to 'parishes' when talking about the definitive maps they're usually talking about whatever area was used to group the paths when the definitive maps were first drawn up and paths numbered. In (then) parished areas this was usually the parish, indeed parishes were individually responsible for drawing up the draft maps and submitting them to the County Council. Paths in (then) unparished areas were usually grouped by the relevant Urban District or County Borough. With some exceptions these groupings usually remain to this day. Even new paths added to the map are usually grouped with these old boundaries for consistency. Thus, the path recorded as Wiggington Bridleway No. 7 might not fall in the current civil parish or unparished area of Wiggington. Regards, Adam On 4 Nov 2017 5:49 p.m., "Dave F" wrote: > Hi > > I've started adding Prow_ref=* to the paths within my Local Authority. > I've been using the format as decided by them. > > I noticed another mapper has already added a few, but using the format by > Barry Cornelius at rowmaps.com. I think this shouldn't be used as it's > Barry's own concoction. > > As the LA is the organisation someone would most likely converse with > about PROWs, it seemed sensible to use the format issued by them. It makes > verification of any updates *much* easier. > > To check I looked at the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org > /wiki/Key:prow_ref > > I wasn't really surprised to find another format recommended. A couple > things appear wrong with this: > * including the parish name in any format other than as issued by the LA > will lead to confusion if their boundaries are amended > * path abbreviations are unnecessary as their classifications are already > defined in other OSM tags (highway & designation) > > Having a 'standard' within OSM seems counter productive as it would make > it non-standard with the vast majority of LAs. > > Your thoughts? > > DaveF > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > ___ > 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] Prow_ref format
On 4 November 2017 at 17:49, Dave F wrote: > I've started adding Prow_ref=* to the paths within my Local Authority. I've > been using the format as decided by them. > > I noticed another mapper has already added a few, but using the format by > Barry Cornelius at rowmaps.com. I think this shouldn't be used as it's > Barry's own concoction. > > As the LA is the organisation someone would most likely converse with about > PROWs, it seemed sensible to use the format issued by them. It makes > verification of any updates *much* easier. I'd agree with that. However, one should be careful about drawing conclusions about what the LA's official referencing system actually is. The legal record of Rights of Way is held in the Definitive Map and Statement, whereas we may well be using an electronic representation of the definitive map for our mapping. In translating the data to their computer systems, the LA may have altered the reference format from that used on the Definitive Map. As others have already noted, there are also inconsistencies in how an LA itself will refer to their own paths. > To check I looked at the wiki: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:prow_ref > > I wasn't really surprised to find another format recommended. A couple > things appear wrong with this: > * including the parish name in any format other than as issued by the LA > will lead to confusion if their boundaries are amended > * path abbreviations are unnecessary as their classifications are already > defined in other OSM tags (highway & designation) > > Having a 'standard' within OSM seems counter productive as it would make it > non-standard with the vast majority of LAs. Through my work with my tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ it's obvious that different LAs use different reference styles and with different degrees of consistency. What is clear though is that in OSM we should adopt a single format *within* each LA to ensure that our reference values can be uniformly interpreted and processed. But I would agree that we need to allow different formats to be used for different LAs. The suggestion that you note in the wiki I think came from me, based on an attempt to standardise the formats used by some of my local LAs (Norfolk and Suffolk). Looking at the Definitive Map and Statements, they weren't entirely consistent, but the suggestion of "Parish FP 12" was the closest thing to a common standard I could see. IIRC, both BY and BOAT were used interchangeably; I recommended BY for consistency with the other two-letter abbreviations (FP, BR, RB) that were more universal. The "Parish FP 12" suggestion was only intended for use where there was not another obviously different de facto standard in use by an LA. If that was the case, then I would expect the LA's own format to take precedence. Including the parish name is not redundant in numbering schemes where numbers are only unique to a given parish. While the current parish boundaries often align with the historic boundaries that were in existence when the Rights of Way were recorded, some have changed over time. LAs typically retain the original numbers and parishes when boundaries change, but will often add any new paths with the correct parish number. The result is that the parent parish cannot be determined by geography (or the history of the geography) alone. A "Footpath no 12" with the boundary of a particular current parish might be numbered as part of that parish, or it might "belong" to a neighbouring parish that included that land in years gone by. The parish name is important, as it typically tells you in which file the Definitive Statement for the route will be found. Since I've added more counties to http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ I've added support for (almost) arbitrary prow_ref formats, but each county needs to be assigned exactly one. With the counties I've set up so far, it's usually been obvious whether there's a different de facto standard from the LA or not. But there were some edge cases, where I've perhaps erred more towards my standard format that I should have done -- although some of that was based on existing use of formats in OSM. If there are any disagreements with what I've gone with in my tool, then please let me know. Robert. PS: I've just added Warwickshire Rights of Way to my tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/warks/ . The prow_ref format used on their definitive map is XXnna where XX is a one or two letter code for the historic borough/district, nn is a 1-3 digit number, and a is an optional lower-case suffix. This is what my tool will is currently detecingt for this county. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format
On 2017-11-05 00:52, Dave F wrote: > Hi > > Comments inline. > > On 04/11/2017 20:07, Adam Snape wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm of the view that using a standard format would be rather unlikely to >> result in confusion in correspondence with the LA, but am equally happy with >> using the LA's version. Some thoughts: >> >> 1. We definitely shouldn't attempt to amend the definitive map 'parish' to >> correspond to modern civil parish boundaries. That could cause problems. > > Could you clarify what you mean by "modern civil parish boundaries". Or what you otherwise mean by "definitive map 'parish'". > 2. A standardized format could make it easier for data consumers to utilise > the tagged information. > I believe all LAs (admin_level=6) and parishes (admin_level=10) have been > added so the 'standardised' as described on the wiki contains no unique data > that can't be retrieved from within osm. The CP coverage is very good in the south and midlands but is largely absent in the (far) north of England. I am working on it How do the LA's tag footpaths in unparished areas?___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format
Hi Comments inline. On 04/11/2017 20:07, Adam Snape wrote: Hi, I'm of the view that using a standard format would be rather unlikely to result in confusion in correspondence with the LA, but am equally happy with using the LA's version. Some thoughts: 1. We definitely shouldn't attempt to amend the definitive map 'parish' to correspond to modern civil parish boundaries. That could cause problems. Could you clarify what you mean by "modern civil parish boundaries". 2. A standardized format could make it easier for data consumers to utilise the tagged information. I believe all LAs (admin_level=6) and parishes (admin_level=10) have been added so the 'standardised' as described on the wiki contains no unique data that can't be retrieved from within osm. 3. There often isn't consistency of formatting in official usage. What might appear on the definitive statement as 'Wiggington Bridleway No.7', might appear in orders as 'Bridleway number 7 in the Parish of Wiggington' and on the open data GIS files as 'Wiggington BW 7' I see that as an internal LA problem & I'm not convinced adding another variation within OSM will help. As long as the format issued under OGL is used, I don't see a problem. 4. A minority of authorities number different categories of RoW separately, so a parish may contain both a footpath 1 and a bridleway 1. If we do standardize a format, including the category seems a good way of ensuring we don't end up with duplicate prow_refs in such parishes. 5. It would be preferable to use the established acronym BOAT for Byway Open to All Traffic, rather than BY as suggested in the Wiki From my OP: * path abbreviations are unnecessary as their classifications are already defined in other OSM tags (highway & designation) -- We haven't unified other references countrywide; such as fhrs:ids & C roads, or internationally, such as Motorways/Autobahns. Cheers DaveF --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format
Hi, I'm of the view that using a standard format would be rather unlikely to result in confusion in correspondence with the LA, but am equally happy with using the LA's version. Some thoughts: 1. We definitely shouldn't attempt to amend the definitive map 'parish' to correspond to modern civil parish boundaries. That could cause problems. 2. A standardized format could make it easier for data consumers to utilise the tagged information. 3. There often isn't consistency of formatting in official usage. What might appear on the definitive statement as 'Wiggington Bridleway No.7', might appear in orders as 'Bridleway number 7 in the Parish of Wiggington' and on the open data GIS files as 'Wiggington BW 7' 4. A minority of authorities number different categories of RoW separately, so a parish may contain both a footpath 1 and a bridleway 1. If we do standardize a format, including the category seems a good way of ensuring we don't end up with duplicate prow_refs in such parishes. 5. It would be preferable to use the established acronym BOAT for Byway Open to All Traffic, rather than BY as suggested in the Wiki Regards, Adam On 4 Nov 2017 5:49 p.m., "Dave F" wrote: Hi I've started adding Prow_ref=* to the paths within my Local Authority. I've been using the format as decided by them. I noticed another mapper has already added a few, but using the format by Barry Cornelius at rowmaps.com. I think this shouldn't be used as it's Barry's own concoction. As the LA is the organisation someone would most likely converse with about PROWs, it seemed sensible to use the format issued by them. It makes verification of any updates *much* easier. To check I looked at the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org /wiki/Key:prow_ref I wasn't really surprised to find another format recommended. A couple things appear wrong with this: * including the parish name in any format other than as issued by the LA will lead to confusion if their boundaries are amended * path abbreviations are unnecessary as their classifications are already defined in other OSM tags (highway & designation) Having a 'standard' within OSM seems counter productive as it would make it non-standard with the vast majority of LAs. Your thoughts? DaveF --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ 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