What a useful insight into a parentless system.
Tony
On 12/05/2020 18:02, Philip Barnes wrote:
On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 21:35 +0100, SK53 wrote:
Its quite possible that this just cannot be done. I believe
Leicestershire, and consequently Rutland as well, does not use any
reference to tehe
On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 21:35 +0100, SK53 wrote:
> Its quite possible that this just cannot be done. I believe
> Leicestershire, and consequently Rutland as well, does not use any
> reference to tehe parish in the identifiers used in official
> documents. Instead all paths consist if a letter
Its quite possible that this just cannot be done. I believe Leicestershire,
and consequently Rutland as well, does not use any reference to tehe parish
in the identifiers used in official documents. Instead all paths consist if
a letter followed by a number. I once tried to extract parishes from
In my view we need to be putting out a consistent UK wide message (preferably
parish name, type and number) and not confusing potential mappers by having
different formats in different counties. We have enough trouble already with
path references variously being put in name, ref or local_ref
4 matches
Mail list logo
