Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

2017-01-10 Thread Robert Norris 
> I cant follow the logic of  "Visibly signed things go into 'ref'", since
>that would seem to mean we don't need lcn_ref tags as these are visible
>signed.

IMHO The ref key is for the primary key (so in these cases against the highway).
It keeps it simple for mappers and is verifiably the ground truth - AKA what 
one should see if travelling or being routed along that way.
As a bonus this is then used *now* by standard renderers/routers/data users 
with no extra effort.

So for a 'road' it's road signs, although it may have signs for subsections of 
users such as cyclists.

Then for ways with multiple uses/routes then subsidiary ref keys should  be 
namespaced to avoid conflicts or suggesting the ref is related to the wrong 
key, hence prow_ref and ncn_ref/lcn_ref/rcn_ref (bicycle route refs probably 
best set once on the relation anyway).

And then specialist data users can do more specific things e.g. OSM Cycle Map 
or SomeoneElses's UK Style using data in the additional keys.

I hope that makes sense.

--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.


From: David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net>
Sent: 10 January 2017 01:17:24
To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

The prow:ref tag emerged from a discussion I started on this list about
the problem of using the ref tag to refer to PROW references.  The
specific problem was that some highways were also designated footpaths /
bridleways, and so if the ref tag was used to tag a rights of way
reference it was given the same rendering priority on these ways as a
road reference.  There was also no way to distinguish between a ref tag
which was for a road reference, and a ref tag which was for a prow
reference on that road.  Thus the prow:ref tag was suggested.

At a later stage I noted the prow_ref tag started to be used.  I did not
follow the discussion / reasoning behind that, but I find it hard to
believe that we need both a prow_ref  tag and a prow:ref tag.  So I
assume the prow_ref tag supoerceeded the prow:ref tag, but for the
reasoning outlined in the first paragraph I would not think it helpful
to simple use the plain "ref" tag on the Isle of Wight.

I cant follow the logic of  "Visibly signed things go into 'ref'", since
that would seem to mean we don't need lcn_ref tags as these are visible
signed.

David




-- Original Message --
From: "Robert Norris" <rw_nor...@hotmail.com>
To: "Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>; "David
Groom" <revi...@pacific-rim.net>
Sent: 10/01/2017 00:36:41
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

>If I remember correctly the use of "prow_ref" tag is normally when the
>reference is taken from the  Council ROW information documents that are
>compatible with OSM.
>'ref' is used when the Reference itself is on the signed on the ground.
>Thus for the Isle Of Wight, it is probably recommended to use the 'ref'
>field since I believe most if not all ROW on the IOW have the reference
>on the sign posts.
>Whereas for most of the rest of England and Wales, only rarely are the
>ROW references put on sign posts (I don't know of anywhere else that
>does it consistently compared to the IOW). The only times I normally
>see ROW references are on permissive notices or temporary route
>diversion notices.
>Thus similar to the recommendation for 'C' road references vs A/B
>Roads. Visibly signed things go into 'ref' so used for A/B roads.
>'official_ref' or similar should be used for C roads.
>
>--
>Be Seeing You - Rob.
>If at first you don't succeed,
>then skydiving isn't for you.
>
>
>From: David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net>
>Sent: 09 January 2017 23:56:51
>To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref
>
>Has any one got any instances of any providers of OSM data using the
>prow_ref on rendering / routing
>
>I recently pointed out to a mapper that if the reference numbers he was
>adding to footpaths were official PROW reference numbers it was
>recommended to use the "prow_ref" tag rather than the plain "ref" tag.
>He's now amended his entries to prow_ref but is a little disappointed
>it doesn't show up on the main map, OsmAnd, or Maps.me.
>
>I have pointed out to him that OSM is mainly a provider of data, not
>maps, so not everything is rendered on the man map, but it would be
>nice if I could point him in the direction of where it is being used,
>other than my own web site and custom OsmAnd file.
>
>Thanks
>
>David
>
>
>



___
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] tag prow_ref

2017-01-10 Thread Dave F 
With 31 993 occurrences prow_ref appears to be the agreed way to go. To 
check is FootpathX an official authority reference format?


DaveF

On 10/01/2017 16:02, Paul Berry wrote:
So, convinced you were talking about me :) should I change *ref* to 
*prow_ref* on this and other footpaths I've tracked recently?


http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/464500797

Regards,
/Paul/

On 10 January 2017 at 11:05, Dave F > wrote:


This thread:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017390.html


Specifically this point by Andy R.:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017423.html


As pointed out official_ref=* is a little to vague. It's always
good to be specific as possible.

DaveF


On 10/01/2017 10:39, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2017-01-10 10:04, Dave F wrote:



FYI The agreed tag for 'C' roads was highway_authority_ref as it
was felt there could be other official or authority tags. It's
always good to be specific.


Where was that discussed/agreed?
The wiki[1] says to use official_ref or admin_ref.
//colin
[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines



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






Avast logo




This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com






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







---
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] tag prow_ref

2017-01-10 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
On 10 January 2017 at 16:02, Paul Berry  wrote:
> So, convinced you were talking about me :) should I change ref to prow_ref on 
> this and other footpaths I've tracked recently?
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/464500797

I'd definitely recommend using prow_ref=* to store the reference
names/numbers of Public Rights of Way (Footpaths, Bridleways,
Restricted Byways and BOATs).

Usually, I think, the numbering system is on a per-parish basis. If
so, then it would be useful to include the parish name too for
disambiguation purposes. Unless the County Council uses some other
specific scheme, I'd suggest using a standard format of
prow_ref="[Parish Name] [Type] [Number]" where [Type] is one of FP,
BR, RB, and BY, and [Number] is the assigned path number without any
leading zeros (usually integer, possibly with a letter suffix).

So your example above would presumably become be prow_ref=Ingbirchworth FP 1.

Best wishes,

Robert.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

2017-01-10 Thread Paul Berry 
So, convinced you were talking about me :) should I change *ref* to
*prow_ref* on this and other footpaths I've tracked recently?

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/464500797

Regards,
*Paul*

On 10 January 2017 at 11:05, Dave F  wrote:

> This thread:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017390.html
>
> Specifically this point by Andy R.:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017423.html
>
> As pointed out official_ref=* is a little to vague. It's always good to be
> specific as possible.
>
> DaveF
>
>
> On 10/01/2017 10:39, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> On 2017-01-10 10:04, Dave F wrote:
>
>
> FYI The agreed tag for 'C' roads was highway_authority_ref as it was felt
> there could be other official or authority tags. It's always good to be
> specific.
>
> Where was that discussed/agreed?
>
> The wiki[1] says to use official_ref or admin_ref.
>
> //colin
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing 
> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
>
> --
> [image: Avast logo]
> 
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
> 
>
>
> ___
> 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] tag prow_ref

2017-01-10 Thread Dave F 

This thread:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017390.html

Specifically this point by Andy R.:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017423.html

As pointed out official_ref=* is a little to vague. It's always good to 
be specific as possible.


DaveF

On 10/01/2017 10:39, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2017-01-10 10:04, Dave F wrote:



FYI The agreed tag for 'C' roads was highway_authority_ref as it was 
felt there could be other official or authority tags. It's always 
good to be specific.



Where was that discussed/agreed?
The wiki[1] says to use official_ref or admin_ref.
//colin
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines


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




---
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] tag prow_ref

2017-01-10 Thread Colin Smale 
On 2017-01-10 10:04, Dave F wrote:

> FYI The agreed tag for 'C' roads was highway_authority_ref as it was felt 
> there could be other official or authority tags. It's always good to be 
> specific.

Where was that discussed/agreed? 

The wiki[1] says to use official_ref or admin_ref. 

//colin 

[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

2017-01-10 Thread Dave F 


On 10/01/2017 00:36, Robert Norris wrote:

If I remember correctly the use of "prow_ref" tag is normally when the 
reference is taken from the  Council ROW information documents that are compatible with 
OSM.
'ref' is used when the Reference itself is on the signed on the ground.
Thus for the Isle Of Wight, it is probably recommended to use the 'ref' field 
since I believe most if not all ROW on the IOW have the reference on the sign 
posts.
Whereas for most of the rest of England and Wales, only rarely are the ROW 
references put on sign posts (I don't know of anywhere else that does it 
consistently compared to the IOW). The only times I normally see ROW references 
are on permissive notices or temporary route diversion notices.
Thus similar to the recommendation for 'C' road references vs A/B Roads. 
Visibly signed things go into 'ref' so used for A/B roads. 'official_ref' or 
similar should be used for C roads.


I'm unsure why you feel there should be a difference in tagging when 
it's signed on the ground. They refer to the same objects as would be 
listed in the Isle of White Council ROW information documents, so should 
be tagged prow_ref.


FYI The agreed tag for 'C' roads was highway_authority_ref as it was 
felt there could be other official or authority tags. It's always good 
to be specific.


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] tag prow_ref

2017-01-09 Thread Andy Townsend 



On 09/01/17 23:56, David Groom wrote:
Has any one got any instances of any providers of OSM data using the 
prow_ref on rendering / routing


A map style rather than a "provider of OSM data", but it seemed like a 
good idea so I added basic support at:


https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L1957

You'll need to render your own tiles though.

Cheers,

Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

2017-01-09 Thread David Groom 
The prow:ref tag emerged from a discussion I started on this list about 
the problem of using the ref tag to refer to PROW references.  The 
specific problem was that some highways were also designated footpaths / 
bridleways, and so if the ref tag was used to tag a rights of way 
reference it was given the same rendering priority on these ways as a 
road reference.  There was also no way to distinguish between a ref tag 
which was for a road reference, and a ref tag which was for a prow 
reference on that road.  Thus the prow:ref tag was suggested.


At a later stage I noted the prow_ref tag started to be used.  I did not 
follow the discussion / reasoning behind that, but I find it hard to 
believe that we need both a prow_ref  tag and a prow:ref tag.  So I 
assume the prow_ref tag supoerceeded the prow:ref tag, but for the 
reasoning outlined in the first paragraph I would not think it helpful 
to simple use the plain "ref" tag on the Isle of Wight.


I cant follow the logic of  "Visibly signed things go into 'ref'", since 
that would seem to mean we don't need lcn_ref tags as these are visible 
signed.


David




-- Original Message --
From: "Robert Norris" <rw_nor...@hotmail.com>
To: "Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>; "David 
Groom" <revi...@pacific-rim.net>

Sent: 10/01/2017 00:36:41
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

If I remember correctly the use of "prow_ref" tag is normally when the 
reference is taken from the  Council ROW information documents that are 
compatible with OSM.

'ref' is used when the Reference itself is on the signed on the ground.
Thus for the Isle Of Wight, it is probably recommended to use the 'ref' 
field since I believe most if not all ROW on the IOW have the reference 
on the sign posts.
Whereas for most of the rest of England and Wales, only rarely are the 
ROW references put on sign posts (I don't know of anywhere else that 
does it consistently compared to the IOW). The only times I normally 
see ROW references are on permissive notices or temporary route 
diversion notices.
Thus similar to the recommendation for 'C' road references vs A/B 
Roads. Visibly signed things go into 'ref' so used for A/B roads. 
'official_ref' or similar should be used for C roads.


--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.


From: David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net>
Sent: 09 January 2017 23:56:51
To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

Has any one got any instances of any providers of OSM data using the 
prow_ref on rendering / routing


I recently pointed out to a mapper that if the reference numbers he was 
adding to footpaths were official PROW reference numbers it was 
recommended to use the "prow_ref" tag rather than the plain "ref" tag.  
He's now amended his entries to prow_ref but is a little disappointed 
it doesn't show up on the main map, OsmAnd, or Maps.me.


I have pointed out to him that OSM is mainly a provider of data, not 
maps, so not everything is rendered on the man map, but it would be 
nice if I could point him in the direction of where it is being used,  
other than my own web site and custom OsmAnd file.


Thanks

David







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

Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

2017-01-09 Thread Robert Norris 
If I remember correctly the use of "prow_ref" tag is normally when the 
reference is taken from the  Council ROW information documents that are 
compatible with OSM.
'ref' is used when the Reference itself is on the signed on the ground.
Thus for the Isle Of Wight, it is probably recommended to use the 'ref' field 
since I believe most if not all ROW on the IOW have the reference on the sign 
posts.
Whereas for most of the rest of England and Wales, only rarely are the ROW 
references put on sign posts (I don't know of anywhere else that does it 
consistently compared to the IOW). The only times I normally see ROW references 
are on permissive notices or temporary route diversion notices.
Thus similar to the recommendation for 'C' road references vs A/B Roads. 
Visibly signed things go into 'ref' so used for A/B roads. 'official_ref' or 
similar should be used for C roads.

--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.


From: David Groom 
Sent: 09 January 2017 23:56:51
To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

Has any one got any instances of any providers of OSM data using the prow_ref 
on rendering / routing

I recently pointed out to a mapper that if the reference numbers he was adding 
to footpaths were official PROW reference numbers it was recommended to use the 
"prow_ref" tag rather than the plain "ref" tag.  He's now amended his entries 
to prow_ref but is a little disappointed it doesn't show up on the main map, 
OsmAnd, or Maps.me.

I have pointed out to him that OSM is mainly a provider of data, not maps, so 
not everything is rendered on the man map, but it would be nice if I could 
point him in the direction of where it is being used,  other than my own web 
site and custom OsmAnd file.

Thanks

David



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