I agree with Adam. In the published path orders fixed to lamposts etc
the written description includes parish, type, number. Sometimes in that
order sometimes type, number, parish. There is no consistency.
Parish, type, number is likely to be understood by every user of OSM and
I have used it
The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 511,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of a lot of
things happening in the openstreetmap world:
https://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/13118/
Enjoy!
Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log
Hi,
There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I agree with
Rob's preference for parish, type, number as it is more idiomatic and
reflects how the routes are most commonly actually referred to in
communication. As Rob noted, the council doesn't use the numeric references
with
This may have got lost in the discussion about highway=no, but I'd
like to get some feedback on what prow_ref format is best to use in
Lancashire. See my previous message below:
On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 19:23, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
wrote:
> The format of the Right of Way numbers seems to
On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 19:33, Mike Baggaley via Talk-GB
wrote:
> >Highway=no seems acceptable to me where a path is permanently physically
> >blocked by a building or such-like. We're not serving anyone by directing
> >people into wals. I do, however, disagree with its use to tag definitive
>
5 matches
Mail list logo
