[Talk-gb-westmidlands] FW: [Talk-GB] Use of PRoW Definitive Statements from Hertfordshire, Oxfordshire, Worcestershire

[Big Fat Frog]

Thanks Andy, this looks a lot of work you've put into this.  I'm not 
sure what it all means but can we use information on footpaths, 
boundaries etc from those county's websites and if so what should we put 
in the Source field?

Cheers

Jonathan

On 22/06/2012 09:00, Andy Robinson wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Robert Whittaker (OSM) [mailto:robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com]
>> Sent: 21 June 2012 23:56
>> To: talk-gb
>> Subject: [Talk-GB] Use of PRoW Definitive Statements from Hertfordshire,
>> Oxfordshire, Worcestershire
>>
>> I'm pleased to be able to report that three councils have agreed to let us
> use
>> their Definitive Statements of Public Rights of Way under the UK Open
>> Government License (OGL). (I'll be posting the emails I sent to the
> councils
>> and some other notes about the correspondence I had with them in a
>> separate message for anyone who's interested.) The councils who've told
>> me we can use their Definitive Statements under the OGL are:
>>
>> * Hertfordshire
>> * Oxfordshire
>> * Worcestershire
>>
>> The first two of these have the statements online in a convenient form
> [1],
>> [2]. Worcestershire does not, but the text of each right of way is
> available
>> from a link in the popup by clicking on the interactive map [3]. Accessing
>> them in this way, it will be hard to avoid inadvertently making use of the
>> additional information about the route of each way from the map. So I've
>> obtained a list of all the image files, which I'm planning to use to allow
> direct
>> access to the statements for each parish. Watch this space for more
> details,
>> though first I have to chase up a few of the files that seem to be
> missing.
>>
>> The OGL requires attribution, so I've added details of these three
> counties to
>> the appropriate wiki page [4]. (Unfortunately though, this page isn't
>> obviously linked from the main OSM map or official copyright/license page
>> [5] so I'm not convinced that attribution statements on [4] completely
> fulfil
>> our obligations at the moment.
>> Yes, we've provided attribution, but it's not somewhere that we could
>> reasonably expect users to find it. I've been in touch with LWG about
> this,
>> and fixing things is on their to do list -- though it seem from their
> minutes
>> that this has been the case since September 2011. Does anyone know who is
>> able to edit the text on [5]?)
>>
>> I'm hopeful that we'll be able to make use of the statements to verify the
>> designation of already mapped ways, and add the appropriate designation
>> tag where it's missing. In most cases, the description probably won't be
>> enough to be able to map a way without a survey.
>> However in conjunction with aerial imagery and maybe a bit of local
>> knowledge, it may be possible to do so for some routes. But the statements
>> will certainly be helpful in any effort of complete the mapping of public
> rights
>> of way by identifying missing routes in need of a survey.
>>
>> To help with matching routes up and checking off what has been found, it
> will
>> be useful to tag the ways with the Council's reference number, using our
>> ref=* key. Doing so has been discussed on this list before [6]. (Though
>> following some more recent discussion [7] we may be heading towards using
>> prow:ref=* instead to avoid a clash with other uses of ref on the same
> ways.)
>> In the thread at [6] it's been observed that different councils use
> different
>> path numbering schemes, so we'll probably be unable to use a common
>> scheme across the whole country.
>> Looking at the numbering scheme used by the three councils above, I'd
>> suggest the following ref formats:
>>
>> * Hertfordshire: "[Parish] [0Num]"
>> * Oxfordshire: "[Pn]/[Num]"
>> * Worcestershire: "[PC]-[0Num]"
>>
>> where [Parish] is the full parish name (in Title case), [Pn] is a
> numerical parish
>> code, [PC] is a two letter parish code (with upper-case letters), [Num] is
> the
>> numerical path number without leading zeros, and [0Num] is the numerical
>> path number with leading zeros.
>>
>> (Note that Worcestershire has re-numbered all their paths, giving each
>> segment between path junctions a distinct number within the parish.
>> The definitive statements still use the old numbers in the route
> descriptions,
>> and it might not be possible to tell which segment of each route has which
>> new number. It it probably a good idea to store the original reference
>> numbers in OSM too, eg with old_ref="[Parish] [Num]" top make using the
>> definitive statements easier.)
>>
>> Finally, when tagging ways with designation=* and/or ref=* based on the
>> definitive statements, I think it would be useful to indicate the source.
> I'd
>> suggest using source:designation=definitive_statement
>> and/or source:ref=definitive_statement as appropriate.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Robert.
>>
>> [1]
>> http://www.hertsdirect.org/services/envplan/countryside/walkingandriding
>> /row/defmap/defstate/
>> [2] http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/content/definitive-map-and-
>> statement-online
>> [3] http://gis.worcestershire.gov.uk/website/Countryside/
>> [4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#United_Kingdom
>> [5] http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
>> [6] Thread starts at
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2012-May/013314.html
>> [7] Thread starts at
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2012-June/013411.html
>>
>> --
>> Robert Whittaker
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
> Talk-gb-westmidlands at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands