Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way

On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 at 09:02, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > > Maybe we should develop some sort of (crowd-sourced?) service which looks > > up parishes based on parish codes to allow easy contribution of descriptive > > prow_refs? > > I've started an effort in that direction at >

Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way

On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 15:34, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > I wasn't familiar with the situation in Dorset but MapThePaths uses the 'SE > 4/22' scheme (actually it appears as 'SE 4 22') so if people want to use MTP > as a source for prow_refs, then that would be the format to use. In general, I

Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way

From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) Sent: 16 April 2020 14:18 To: talk-gb Subject: [Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way I've recently been looking at increasing the coverage of my PRoW comparison tool https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/ by adding new counties. In particul

Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way

Hi Rob There is a very similar state in Lancashire, I can imagine the Lancashire officer providing  a very similar response to that from Dorset. Dorset are saying that their definitive statement is listed by named parish, status and route number. I believe that as the public definitive

[Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way

I've recently been looking at increasing the coverage of my PRoW comparison tool https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/ by adding new counties. In particular, I've been looking at the data from Dorset. I've hit a small issue though, in that the council uses two different formats for their Right of

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 13:57 +, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > the RoW within that area.) > > FYI: AFAIK, the value in rowmaps isn't supposed to be a ref for use > in > OSM, and has been deliberately standardised to suit the author's aims > and database structure. The initial two

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

On 6 November 2017 13:45:15 GMT+00:00, Andy Townsend wrote: >On 06/11/2017 13:34, Philip Barnes wrote: >> I don't believe that the type is needed as it can be derived from the > >> designation tag. > >... provided that someone hasn't caused that to be lost somehow >(perhaps

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

On 6 November 2017 at 13:23, Mike Evans wrote: > On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 12:46:34 + > Rob Nickerson wrote: > >> Mike wrote: >> >> > A typical code is "PB|SP29|4/1" >> >> Be warned, this is not the format that Pembrokeshire use on the pdf scans >>

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

On 06/11/2017 13:34, Philip Barnes wrote: I don't believe that the type is needed as it can be derived from the designation tag. ... provided that someone hasn't caused that to be lost somehow (perhaps by merging ways by mistake).  :) Also there are examples of paths on the border between

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

On 6 November 2017 at 11:13, Dave F wrote: > I'm unsure why or how often "altered reference format" happens, but would be > a LA internal matter & irrelevant to OSM. I haven't looked in detail at that many Authorities, but I would guess that if you see a numeric

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

I don't believe that the type is needed as it can be derived from the designation tag. As a regular user of rights of way references to report problems to my local highway authority I can vouch that the parish code based GIS reference is far easier to use than the colloquial reference

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 12:46:34 + Rob Nickerson wrote: > Mike wrote: > > > A typical code is "PB|SP29|4/1" > > Be warned, this is not the format that Pembrokeshire use on the pdf scans > on their website. It seems to be GIS data only and may be a format Barry >

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

Mike wrote: > A typical code is "PB|SP29|4/1" Be warned, this is not the format that Pembrokeshire use on the pdf scans on their website. It seems to be GIS data only and may be a format Barry made. PB is "Pembrokeshire"! As Pembrokeshire don't use parish names I'd go for prow_ref="FP

[Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

Dave, I think the point was that nobody has a common format. Some LAs use a different style when they refer to the same path in the definitive statement when compared to the GIS data. Of course we can manipulate OGL data. That's included in the licence. If we do change then it should be obvious

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 11:51:48 + Philip Barnes wrote: > On 6 November 2017 11:13:23 GMT+00:00, Dave F > wrote: > > > >On 05/11/2017 10:42, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > >> On 4 November 2017 at 17:49, Dave F

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

On 05/11/2017 12:42, Rob Nickerson wrote: >I recommended BY for consistency with the other two-letter >abbreviations (FP, BR, RB) that were more universal. +1 Given that there is little internal consistency within each LA and that these are rarely even marked on the ground, my preference

[Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

>I recommended BY for consistency with the other two-letter >abbreviations (FP, BR, RB) that were more universal. +1 Given that there is little internal consistency within each LA and that these are rarely even marked on the ground, my preference would be to stick with the standard as described

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

Hi, I agree with what Robert has said and think he has clarified many points admirably. I think we need to be clear that in many cases what we will be recording under prow_ref is a working reference used in the council's GIS system, not part of the definitive official record of rights of way.

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

On 4 November 2017 at 17:49, Dave F wrote: > I've started adding Prow_ref=* to the paths within my Local Authority. I've > been using the format as decided by them. > > I noticed another mapper has already added a few, but using the format by > Barry Cornelius at

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

On 2017-11-05 00:52, Dave F wrote: > Hi > > Comments inline. > > On 04/11/2017 20:07, Adam Snape wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm of the view that using a standard format would be rather unlikely to >> result in confusion in correspondence with the LA, but am equally happy with >> using the LA's

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

Hi Comments inline. On 04/11/2017 20:07, Adam Snape wrote: Hi, I'm of the view that using a standard format would be rather unlikely to result in confusion in correspondence with the LA, but am equally happy with using the LA's version. Some thoughts: 1. We definitely shouldn't attempt

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

Hi, I'm of the view that using a standard format would be rather unlikely to result in confusion in correspondence with the LA, but am equally happy with using the LA's version. Some thoughts: 1. We definitely shouldn't attempt to amend the definitive map 'parish' to correspond to modern civil

[Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

Hi I've started adding Prow_ref=* to the paths within my Local Authority. I've been using the format as decided by them. I noticed another mapper has already added a few, but using the format by Barry Cornelius at rowmaps.com. I think this shouldn't be used as it's Barry's own concoction.