On 27 June 2017 at 11:56, Pierre Riteau <pie...@pierreriteau.name> wrote: > However it reports much lower mapping coverage than I expected. It > appears to be due to a mismatch of prow_ref format. I know that at least > in and around Oxford, most paths have been mapped with a prow_ref based > on the definitive statement in the style of "ParishNumber/PathNumber". > See this bridleway as an example using prow_ref 320/14: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31871564 > > The prow_ref Wiki page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:prow_ref) > suggests using "ParishName PathType PathNumber", such as "Oxford BR 14". > Is that the latest recommendation from the community? You seem to be an > expert on the topic!
My personal preference is for the "Oxford BR 14" format, but I'm not sure there's really been a proper discussion about it. That format is certainly it's well-used, particularly in counties where there is no other obvious format. The complication arises where a county has a different scheme, e.g. by giving each parish a reference number. In the cases I've looked at, the parish id number system seems to be more of an internal convenience in the Authority's data systems, rather than being an attempt to renumber the rights of way in the official Definitive Map and Statement.e.g. for Oxfordshire, while the Definitive Statements do include the parish number, the left-hand heading is the parish name, and the path number and type code appear in the first two columns. The final number (usually 10, 20, 30) in the RoW codes in Oxfordshire is a segment number, and this doesn't appear at all in the Definitive Statements. Whatever format is used, I think it should be consistent within each Authority (county or unitary authority), even if different authorities use different formats. though there are obvious advantages from using the same format for all authorities -- hence my preference. Absent a national decision, I think it's basically up to mappers in each county what format they want to use, and without a discussion there will probably be convergence towards a critical mass in most cases. In Oxfordshire, both formats seem to be in use, though "Oxford BR 14" seems to be more popular: there's 259km tagged like that (http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/oxon/) and only about 38km tagged the other way (see http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/oxon/tagging-errors). If local mappers do decide on a different format for a given authority I'd be happy to adjust my tool to pick that up. (Though I wouldn't want too many different formats to have to cope with!) It's not an answer I'm afraid, but hopefully at least some useful background information. > I would be happy to move to this format for Oxfordshire if it is also > adopted elsewhere. How long would it take for your comparison tool to > include updated data? The parishes are updated on a rolling basis, and usually new data is fetch about once a week. You can view the last refresh data at the bottom of each parish page. If you want a faster update, click on the button. This puts the parish to the front of the queue next time I run the update script. So you should get an update within a 6-12 hours if you do this. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
