Hi,
I'm so glad the information is being used and progress is being made.
However, I do have to agree with Rob about the Council's online map.
Re:OS copyright they are really highly protective about what they perceive
to be derived data. I think it would be difficult to add rights of way
whilst
er than name (happy for them to be auto
edited using the lookup table Tony has shared).
Cheers.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
Sent: 11 May 2020 15:49
To: talk-gb
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way -
legal vs reality)
Just wanted to add that in my view the other reason to list by parish name,
type and number is that these directly relate to the legal record. Parish
Footpath 11 has usually been Parish Footpath 11 since the 1950s and will
continue to be so unless a formal legal process is followed to change
On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 14:12, nathan case wrote:
> Thanks Tony and Adam for your responses. It is good to know that LCC have
> released the parish IDs in the data as well. Makes a lookup table easy to
> produce.
>
> It still remains that if I were a casual mapper and wanted to add an unmapped
general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support.
Regards.
From: Tony OSM <mailto:tonyo...@gmail.com>
Sent: 10 May 2020 12:29
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way -
legal v
er) I support.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Tony OSM
>> *Sent:* 10 May 2020 12:29
>> *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights
>> of
;
>
> The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support.
>
>
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Tony OSM
> *Sent:* 10 May 2020 12:29
> *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public R
sh ID/name, PROW type, number) I support.
Regards.
*From:*Tony OSM
*Sent:* 10 May 2020 12:29
*To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public
Rights of Way - legal vs reality)
I agree with Adam. In the published path orders fixed to lamposts etc
th
parish ID into parish name, then that would be perfectly acceptable.
The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support.
Regards.
From: Tony OSM
Sent: 10 May 2020 12:29
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
