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 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.
>
> Could you clarify what you mean by "modern civil parish boundaries".
Or what you otherwise mean by "definitive map 'parish'".
> 2. A standardized format could make it easier for data consumers to utilise
> the tagged information.
> I believe all LAs (admin_level=6) and parishes (admin_level=10) have been
> added so the 'standardised' as described on the wiki contains no unique data
> that can't be retrieved from within osm.
The CP coverage is very good in the south and midlands but is largely
absent in the (far) north of England. I am working on it....
How do the LA's tag footpaths in unparished areas?
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
