I guess the thing to do is just use the most common reference. I am aware of several schemes:
Hampshire uses parish plus number e.g. "Tichborne Footpath 5", West Sussex uses a county-wide, 3 or 4 digit number (e.g. 1263, 2005) and I've also seen XXX/YY (in Wrexham borough, Wales) and very large, 6-digit numbers (Cumbria). We should probably just make it free form rather than enforce a particular format. Nick -----Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com> wrote: ----- To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org From: Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com> Date: 31/05/2012 06:04PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref codes (WAS:Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence) Fantastic news about Hamps PRoW data :-) Anyone else contacting their local council can use this as an example case. Q: Do we need to have a suggested way of tagging the reference numbers in ref=* ? So far I have seen the following in use: * Parish / path no. / link no. ==> For example: 417/26/1 (where the parish is a number code) * Area RoW_type Path_no. ==> For example: North Tawton Bridleway 18 Delimiters seen include ' ' , '/' and '-'. A: Can I throw out the suggestion that we use: * Parish-RoWType-PathNo<-LinkNo.> (where the bit in <> brackets is optional). I assume that use of '-' is allowed. Regards, RobJN _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
