Thanks Tony and Adam for your responses. It is good to know that LCC have
released the parish IDs in the data as well. Makes a lookup table easy to
produce.
It still remains that if I were a casual mapper and wanted to add an unmapped
path to OSM, the primary source for the prow_ref is the council’s map. That map
uses parish ID not parish name (i.e. it shows Label2). It is then complicated
that other sources use an mix of formats. (Even for me, parish IDs are the most
straightforward way of adding prow_ref data to OSM.)
So, as I said, my view is that Parish name and Parish ID should be both
acceptable (though, of course, only one should be used per PROW). They serve
the same function and can easily be crossed matched by third party services.
From: Tony OSM <tonyo...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:56 AM
To: nathan case <nathanc...@outlook.com>; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way -
legal vs reality)
Hi
The data file sent by Lancs CC contained the District Number, Parish Number,
Type, District Name, Parish Name plus coordinates list.
The first entry in the kml file is
<ExtendedData><SchemaData schemaUrl="#PROW_Shapefile">
<SimpleData name="OBJECTID_1">33</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="OBJECTID_2">120</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="OBJECTID">16470.00000000</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="PATH_TYPE">Footpath</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="PATH_NUMBE">18.00000000</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="CORE">yes</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="DISTRICT">BURNLEY</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="PARISH">HAPTON</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="DIST_NO">12.00000000</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="PARISH_NO">7.00000000</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="PATH_LABEL">FP 18</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="LABEL2">12-7-FP 18</SimpleData>
<SimpleData
name="PROW_URL">http://lccmapzone/mapzone/asp/prow/general.aspx?path=FP18&dis=12&par=7</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="IMS_SYMBOL">FP</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="SHAPE_FID">120</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="SHAPE_LEN">768.56943096600</SimpleData>
</SchemaData></ExtendedData>
<LineString><coordinates>-2.27639184743805,53.772975749866191
-2.276419499154496,53.773014353403141 -2.276473919958041,53.773056738569473
-2.276547825688409,53.773102501481461 -2.276629364748936,53.773140809891281
.......
The data does contain the relevant information in this case Hapton FP 18. Some
people used the LABEL2 field 12-7-FP-18 which is easier to grab for display -
but the point is that Lancs CC have provided both formats.
I have shared a list of District & Parish names and numbers.
Rob has an experimental map & tool of Lancashire showing the format of Parish
Type Number - which I have found to be very useful recently in labelling PROW's
in my district 9. (Didn't know that Judge Dredd came to Chorley!). I understand
that Rob will make that experimental map widely available if people agree to
the Lancashire format, as his tool also checks for well formed PROW refs,
correct lengths, and completeness of implementation of the PROW set per parish.
We have the data from Lancs CC - we need to agree the best way to use it, and
only the ref is stopping that.
Regards
Tony Shield
TonyS999
On 11/05/2020 09:07, nathan case 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><mailto:tonyo...@gmail.com>
Sent: 10 May 2020 12:29
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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<mailto: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
