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
> https:/
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 think
ere
and Milland parishes.
Nick
________
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 http
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 refe
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
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 charact
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
>by merging ways by
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
>> on their website. It seems to be GIS data only and
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 t
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 parish code in the GIS data, then
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 suggeste
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
> made.
Indeed so. ON the PDF it
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 SP29/4/1"
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 t
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
> >Are any LAs, that you've looked at, not including parish codes within
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 woul
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 Are any LAs, that you've looked at, not including parish codes within
>their refs?
Leicestershire don't use parish codes, they use a letter n
On 05/11/2017 10:42, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
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
B
>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 o
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.
Col
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 rowmaps.com. I think this shouldn'
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 v
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 to
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 p
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.
On 29 March 2013 14:22, Dudley Ibbett wrote:
> I have managed to get hold of a couple of maps from our Parish Council with
> the prow reference numbers written on them. The map itself is marked as not
> to be photo copied and appears to have been issued by Derbyshire County
> Council. It dates b
On 29 March 2013 15:39, Barry Cornelius wrote:
> I think this means choose either:
>AV3/3
> or:
>Ashleyhay FP 3
> as I think that will be what's on Derbyshire's online map.
+1
Personally, I would suggest going for the "Ashleyhay FP 3" format as a
default for the prow_ref key (i.e. parish
Dudley,
On 29 March 2013 15:25, Dudley Ibbett wrote:
> Many Thanks
>
> I'll use the code without the county council letters as this is what is in
> the name tag in JOSM. I'll debate as to whether to split the path number
> according to the last number as this would require quite a bit of work an
I'll use the code without the county council letters as this is what is in the
name tag in JOSM. I'll debate as to whether to
split the path number according to the last number as this would require quite
a bit of work and I've still not mapped all the
paths in the parish yet!
As you refer to
the parish yet!
Dudley
> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:01:52 +
> From: barrycorneliu...@gmail.com
> To: dudleyibb...@hotmail.com
> CC: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref
>
> > Is it going to be OK for me to use this map to put the prow_ref numbers
his data?
Many Thanks
Dudley
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:32:22 +
From: rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref
The conclusion seemed to be to add the reference in the same format as used by
the Local Authority. Some include the parish name, some
Is it going to be OK for me to use this map to put the prow_ref numbers into
OSM? I assume the base map is OS and subject to their copyright but the
numbers appear to have been penned on. I will only use it for the numbers
and not for drawing anything else.
The Council provides an online map
The conclusion seemed to be to add the reference in the same format as used
by the Local Authority. Some include the parish name, some also include FP
for "footpath" etc. As your data is from a Parish level it's unclear
whether the Local Authority will include the parish name before any numbers
- a
Hello,
I am still not clear of the outcome of how to add the references to OSM,
there doesn't appear to be any standard format across each local authority.
A better source for the data is probably www.rowmaps.com Derbyshire data is
available from there, it's released under an OS Open Data licence
I have managed to get hold of a couple of maps from our Parish Council with the
prow reference numbers written on them. The map itself is marked as not to be
photo copied and appears to have been issued by Derbyshire County Council. It
dates back to 2004.
Is it going to be OK for me to use
35 matches
Mail list logo
