Hi, I can confirm that the parish name data was in the council's original disclosure and is contained in the ESRI shapefile I passed to rowmaps. It's available under an open licence (OGL v3) https://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/LA/prows.zip . I think Barry at rowmaps then trimmed some of his data for teh maps that display on his own site so that each county follows a common format.
Kind regards, Adam On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 09:08, nathan case <nathanc...@outlook.com> wrote: > I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name). > > > > At least in Lancashire’s case, I think the use of the numerical ID in > place of the parish name should be acceptable. The numerical parish ID is > what is used on the council’s own PROW map – as well as the open data they > released (and thus the easiest to import into OSM). It would be unrealistic > to expect mappers to then cross-check the parish ID with a name, especially > since that data is not (as far as I’m aware) easily (openly?) available. > > > > Of course, if third party sites want to then use lookup tables to convert > parish ID into parish name, then that would be perfectly acceptable. > > > > The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support. > > > > Regards. > > > > > > *From:* Tony OSM <tonyo...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* 10 May 2020 12:29 > *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights > of Way - legal vs reality) > > > > I agree with Adam. In the published path orders fixed to lamposts etc the > written description includes parish, type, number. Sometimes in that order > sometimes type, number, parish. There is no consistency. > > Parish, type, number is likely to be understood by every user of OSM and I > have used it in communication with Lancs CC who appear to understand it. > > Regards > > TonyS999 > > On 10/05/2020 12:03, Adam Snape wrote: > > Hi, > > > > There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I agree with > Rob's preference for parish, type, number as it is more idiomatic and > reflects how the routes are most commonly actually referred to in > communication. As Rob noted, the council doesn't use the numeric references > with any consistency even within its own electronic systems (with the > format on the online map being at variance with the underlying dataset). I > can confirm that neither the definitive maps nor statements for Lancashire > use any such references. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Adam > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
