<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Regards</p>
<p>TonyS999<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/05/2020 12:03, Adam Snape wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKw83WS3FTtM6HNwEn0Q7xcjFxipOvfUiMOTR_dESSMMhZ0CCQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">Hi,
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Kind regards,</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Adam</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>