You can add route relations for each number, that way you can search for the
real prow_ref, not hidden between semicolons.
--
Andrew
From: Bob Hawkins
Sent: 04 July 2017 12:05:25
To: Ed Loach; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights
On 4 July 2017 at 11:57, Bob Hawkins wrote:
> I should be interested in further comments on prow_ref=Checkendon BR 28;Stoke
> Row BR 15.
That's the standard way to have multiple values for a key in OSM, and
it is exactly what I use for dual-numbered PRoWs like that.
My Rights of Way progress to
I'd have thought this is because definitive maps were compiled at parish
level on paper and the identifiers created are based on those paper
documents not an IT system. Given that the definitive maps are just that,
any sensible digital record should take cognisance of the fact that the
same path ma
Then even more reason to check.
You'd have thought the organisation responsible would want unique keys
to avoid confusion.
DaveF
On 04/07/2017 13:44, Philip Barnes wrote:
Parish councils don't have responsibility for the upkeep of rights of way, that
is the responsibility of the local highwa
On 4 July 2017 13:30:09 BST, Dave F wrote:
>I think it's worth contacting the PCs. It's unlikely they both want to
>take responsibility for it's upkeep.
Parish councils don't have responsibility for the upkeep of rights of way, that
is the responsibility of the local highway authority (County
I think it's worth contacting the PCs. It's unlikely they both want to
take responsibility for it's upkeep.
DaveF
On 04/07/2017 12:05, Bob Hawkins wrote:
Ed
I must not have made clear the situation: the bridleway is coincident
with the borders of two parishes, carrying a route code for each
Adam
The parishes are mapped already. I like your suggestion of adding a note in
each set of tags, referencing the other prow_ref.
To all
I lack knowledge about these sorts of things: would a query, in Overpass Turbo,
for example, recognise a single prow-ref’s two values that are separated by a
On 04/07/2017 12:05, Bob Hawkins wrote:
Ed
I must not have made clear the situation: the bridleway is coincident
with the borders of two parishes, carrying a route code for each
parish, not a way crossing parish boundaries.
Bob
I can vaguely remember an example in Lincolnshire where the signe
PS. Adding the parish boundary (if it hasn't been mapped already) and a
map note would help somebody understand that the two values prow_ref values
were not an error
On 4 July 2017 at 12:27, Adam Snape wrote:
> It's not too uncommon for the centre of a highway to form part of the
> parish bound
Totally frivolous suggestion (I think adding the prow_refs separated by a
semicolon is the sensible approach): use left_prow_ref & right_prow_ref!
Jerry
On 4 July 2017 at 12:27, Adam Snape wrote:
> It's not too uncommon for the centre of a highway to form part of the
> parish boundary, with hal
It's not too uncommon for the centre of a highway to form part of the
parish boundary, with half falling in one parish and half in another. As
long as we map highways as lines rather than areas, adding two values to
the prow_ref tag as suggested seems the best solution where both halves are
given s
Ed
I must not have made clear the situation: the bridleway is coincident with the
borders of two parishes, carrying a route code for each parish, not a way
crossing parish boundaries.
Bob
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_
David
I thank you for your reply. I should be interested in further comments on
prow_ref=Checkendon BR 28;Stoke Row BR 15.
Bob
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing
Split it at the parish boundary?
From: Bob Hawkins [mailto:bobhawk...@waitrose.com]
Sent: 04 July 2017 10:15
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way
I have discovered a situation in South Oxfordshire where a single bridleway has
two route codes: 160/28
On 04/07/17 10:15, Bob Hawkins wrote:
Keys cannot be duplicated
Keys can, however, have multiple values, using ";" as a delimiter.
Whether data consumers would cope with this is an open question, but I
can't seem them coping with alternatives any better.
I have discovered a situation in South Oxfordshire where a single bridleway has
two route codes: 160/28/* and 368/15/*. The Definitive Statement Remarks read,
“Also numbered BR 15 in Stoke Row” for Checkendon parish and “Also numbered BR
28 in Checkendon” for Stoke Row parish, which is borne ou
16 matches
Mail list logo