On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 12:46:34 +0000 Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike wrote: > > > A typical code is "PB|SP29|4/1" > > Be warned, this is not the format that Pembrokeshire use on the pdf scans > on their website. It seems to be GIS data only and may be a format Barry > made. Indeed so. ON the PDF it's referenced as "SP29/4" > > PB is "Pembrokeshire"! > > As Pembrokeshire don't use parish names I'd go for prow_ref="FP SP29/4/1" > assuming this is a footpath. The FP part seems redundant as it's already tagged as a footpath elsewhere however, "FP SP29/4" would be correct I guess. Cheers Mike > > Thanks, > Rob > > > > On 6 Nov 2017 12:30 p.m., "Rob Nickerson" <rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dave, > > > > I think the point was that nobody has a common format. Some LAs use a > > different style when they refer to the same path in the definitive > > statement when compared to the GIS data. > > > > Of course we can manipulate OGL data. That's included in the licence. If > > we do change then it should be obvious to the LA what we mean if we speak > > with them. > > > > I will be sticking with the wiki for any I map as this has been previously > > discussed and has therefore grown traction according to taginfo. > > > > For Leicestershire it seems to be an obvious change: they don't include > > Parish so just don't include it. So I'd map prow_ref="FP J16" as an example. > > > > P.s. I thought folks usually don't like to add third party database > > references to OSM. Hence we came to an agreement of how prow_ref should be > > *constructed* based on OGL data (not just a copy of one of the third party > > attribute values). > > > > Thanks, > > Rob > > _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
