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 parish boundaries. That could cause problems. 2. A standardized format could make it easier for data consumers to utilise the tagged information. 3. There often isn't consistency of formatting in official usage. What might appear on the definitive statement as 'Wiggington Bridleway No.7', might appear in orders as 'Bridleway number 7 in the Parish of Wiggington' and on the open data GIS files as 'Wiggington BW 7' 4. A minority of authorities number different categories of RoW separately, so a parish may contain both a footpath 1 and a bridleway 1. If we do standardize a format, including the category seems a good way of ensuring we don't end up with duplicate prow_refs in such parishes. 5. It would be preferable to use the established acronym BOAT for Byway Open to All Traffic, rather than BY as suggested in the Wiki Regards, Adam On 4 Nov 2017 5:49 p.m., "Dave F" <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> wrote: 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. As the LA is the organisation someone would most likely converse with about PROWs, it seemed sensible to use the format issued by them. It makes verification of any updates *much* easier. To check I looked at the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org /wiki/Key:prow_ref I wasn't really surprised to find another format recommended. A couple things appear wrong with this: * including the parish name in any format other than as issued by the LA will lead to confusion if their boundaries are amended * path abbreviations are unnecessary as their classifications are already defined in other OSM tags (highway & designation) Having a 'standard' within OSM seems counter productive as it would make it non-standard with the vast majority of LAs. Your thoughts? DaveF --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
