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

[Big Fat Frog]

Sorry Andy, I didn't get to the bottom of your email before I followed 
the links and asked the very questions your email was answering.

Sorry

Jonathan

On 22/06/2012 13:36, Big Fat Frog wrote:
> 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