This may have got lost in the discussion about highway=no, but I'd like to get some feedback on what prow_ref format is best to use in Lancashire. See my previous message below:
On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 19:23, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote: > The format of the Right of Way numbers seems to depend on what > map/data you look at. I think it would be highly desirable if we could > agree on a single format to use throughout the whole of Lancashire in > OpenStreetMap. > > I think the Lancashire online map at > https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/ > is a relatively recent innovation. (By the way, you shouldn't use that > map for OSM mapping, as there's an OS-copyrighted backdrop, which you > might inadvertently take information from, or use relative positioning > information from.) The Council's online map uses "1-2-FP 3", while > mapthepaths uses "1-2 3" (which comes from older GIS data Lancashire > released and was given to rowmaps.com). On my tool, I've currently > adopted the "[parish name] [type] [number]" format, which is the > default if I don't select anything else. > > So what to standardise on? The "1-2" part in the numbers above is a > parish code, which I think is probably an internal GIS thing within > the council, rather than what the official legal documents use to > refer to the paths. If you look at how they actually refer to the > paths, e.g. in the DMMO register at > http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/dmmoview/index.asp you'll see > they almost always refer to them by the parish name, type and number. > There's some discrepancy over whether a Public Footpath is PF or FP > (or occasionally PFP). But on the computer-generated order maps, it's > always FP, with BW used for Bridleway and BOAT for Byways Open to All > Traffic. I couldn't find a Restricted Byway on a map. The parish names > (rather than ID numbers) are also a lot easier for humans to deal with > when mapping. > > Based on the above, my preference would be to agree to use the > "[parish name] [type] [number]" format. But if it's decided to use > something else, I'll happily change my tool to whatever is decided. > (Although I can only set one format per county, so it will need to be > county-wide.) Hopefully Nick will be able / willing to do the same on > mapthepaths. (I've since been in touch with Nick, and he's keen to work together so we have use the same format for each county in our two tools.) Many thanks, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
