Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

Barry Cornelius wrote: > Robert Whittaker wrote: > > I wouldn't have thought that listing the authority would be > > that useful -- you should be able to work that out from the > > county that the way resides in. > My view is that it would be useful to include the id of the council > as I do not

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

I've been looking at Durham records online (not available to download) they are recorded like below: Status: BW Parish: Crook Path Number: 37 Path Ref Number: 028037 The long reference number identifies the Parish (first part) and the path number (last part) or I believe that's how it is made

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

e: > Not that Essex have released their data, so I’ve not had to worry about > this, but wouldn’t this be an argument for prow_ref and prow_name? Or even > prow_ref and name? > > ** ** > > *From:* Rob Nickerson [mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 04 January 2013 1

[Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

I agree that if there is a choice for prow_ref such as: 801FP1 Abbots Bickington Footpath 1 then I would use the same as the councils interactive map. If this isn't possible I would prefer written parish names rather than codes. That is prow_ref=Abbots Bickington Footpath 1 Rob

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:47:34 Steven Horner wrote: I have followed the guidelines at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines but should I tag the footpath with the local authority reference which would aid logging the path to the Council if problems like FixMyPaths, i

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

> -Original Message- > From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) > [mailto:robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com] > Sent: 02 January 2013 11:23 > To: talk-gb > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref= > > On 31 December 2012 16:38, David Groom wrote:

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

On 31 December 2012 16:38, David Groom wrote: > Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a few > hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of prow:ref, > I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the wiki) would have > been the better optio

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

On 1 January 2013 16:30, Craig Loftus wrote: >> 1/ prow:ref suggests some sort of name-spacing, but we haven't >> actually developed any tagging scheme that makes use of a prow:* >> name-space. So currently prow:ref would be the only tag used. > > Is it wise to preclude adding more tags to the na

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

On 31 December 2012 16:38, David Groom wrote: > Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a few > hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of prow:ref, > I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the wiki) would have > been the better optio

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

- Original Message - From: "Rob Nickerson" To: Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 2:43 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref= Arg! We were converging on "prow_ref" when I last looked at tag info a few months back. Perhaps I should

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

Arg! We were converging on "prow_ref" when I last looked at tag info a few months back. Perhaps I should have checked before changing the wiki!! Seeing that I have now updated the wiki (and it really doesn't make a shred of difference) does anyone have an issue if I change the existing "prow:ref"

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

After 2026 a public right of way will only exist if it appears on the Local Authorities "Definitive Map". This means that irrespective of what is on the ground, the legal right of way is that shown on the legal Definitive Map. What does this mean for OSM: * As noted "designation=public_footpath"

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

Apologies that this was never added to the wiki page, but you are correct we discussed prow:ref and prow_ref. I believe tag info suggests we are converging more on prow_ref=* so will update the wiki to reflect this. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_access_provisions#Public_Rights_of_Way Rega

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

Dudley Ibbett wrote: Please be careful with the ™doesn't actually exist™ as the owner may not have maintained the access point in the hope that people will stop using the path. I've seen this on a number of occasions. If there's something visible on the ground then I'd definitely map it, even

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

Thanks Andy that's what I was looking for. The job of adding footpaths, bridleways and byways gets more complicated if we want it to be as accurate as possible. The prow=ref obviously isn't needed but good to have if it's known. -- www.stevenhorner.com @stevenhorne

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

Andy raised several good points regarding tagging and references but not sure I would agree about ignoring paths if not existing on the ground. Officially if a path exists on the Definitive map then you have the right to walk it, this is the information I was given by the PRoW team when I became a

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

David Groom wrote: Last time this was discussed on the list I think we favoured prow:ref http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2012-June/013424.html Yes - well remembered - there are indeed lots more of those: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=prow_ref Cheers, Andy _

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

- Original Message - From: "SomeoneElse" To: Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:22 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM Steven Horner wrote: I have added several footpaths locally but I am often left wondering how to tag these or how to break

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

Please be careful with the ™doesn't actually exist™ as the owner may not have maintained the access point in the hope that people will stop using the path. I've seen this on a number of occasions. I would investigate further and raise it with the PRoWO. I believe there is a deadline coming up

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

Steven Horner wrote: I have added several footpaths locally but I am often left wondering how to tag these or how to break them into sections. I have followed the guidelines at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines but should I tag the footpath with the local a

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

Barry: I applied on Nov 28th but contacted the PRoW team who I have some contact with, I received the below response on Dec 10th. It's good to read they have made some progress and applied for an exemption. Do you have any thoughts on how you would tag the paths if adding to OSM as I mentioned. I

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012, Steven Horner wrote: I have been adding to OSM for about 18 months but more active in recent weeks. I have requested the PRoW from Durham County Council, they currently have not released their data but do have it electronically, just not publicly available to download yet. Th

[Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM

Hello, I have been adding to OSM for about 18 months but more active in recent weeks. I have requested the PRoW from Durham County Council, they currently have not released their data but do have it electronically, just not publicly available to download yet. Their response was more postive than I