<div dir="ltr">Sorry, crossposted with Tony there<br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 11:01, Adam Snape <<a href="mailto:adam.c.snape@gmail.com">adam.c.snape@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div><div>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) <a href="https://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/LA/prows.zip" target="_blank">https://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/LA/prows.zip</a> . 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. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Kind regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Adam<br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 09:08, nathan case <<a href="mailto:nathancase@outlook.com" target="_blank">nathancase@outlook.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-GB">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name).
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Regards.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentcolor currentcolor;border-style:solid none none;border-width:1pt medium medium;padding:3pt 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Tony OSM <<a href="mailto:tonyosm9@gmail.com" target="_blank">tonyosm9@gmail.com</a>>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 10 May 2020 12:29<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">talk-gb@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<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.
<u></u><u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>Regards<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>TonyS999<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 10/05/2020 12:03, Adam Snape wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi, <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kind regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Adam<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>Talk-GB mailing list<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-GB mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>