[Talk-GB] PRoW Ref codes (WAS:Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence)

[Gregory]

Is it not sensible to use the reference format of the place you are in,
rather than create some sudo standard?

If a footpath is in County Durham, and I see OSM has it as ref="Footpath
5", then I know I can call Durham council and say "Repair footpath 5
please.".
If another footpath is in Newcastle, and I see OSM has it as ref="NE/06-b",
then I can call that council and say "Repair path NE slash 06 dash b,
please.".
If I call Durham council and ask them to fix "Footpath DH slash 5." they
will just be confused why I'm saying DH and slash.

Should there be a national referencing system introduced, or at least
planned and adopted by some areas, then we can think about using tags such
as *ref:uk*, *{name_of_standard}_ref*, or perhaps just *ref* and *old_ref* for
the number/format previously used in the area.

On 2 June 2012 11:35, Barry Cornelius <barrycorneliusuk at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 31 May 2012, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
>
>> ... (This is Worcestershire, and at the same time,
>>
>> they've also split the paths up at every junction so that no path has
>> two routes leaving a junction, i.e. a path always ends at the first
>> junction of rights of way it comes to, and its continuation is now a
>> separate new path. I think this may have something to do with
>> geometries in GIS software.)
>>
>
> I think this is also adopted by Buckinghamshire.  For example, there is a
> four way junction where TWY/16/2, TWY/16/3, TWY/19/1 and TWY/19/2 meet.
> Oxfordshire don't do this. One of their four way junctions has the meeting
> of 265/29, 265/29, 265/33 and 265/33.
>
>  I'm not sure what's best to do for for an overall format. I think we
>> may probably have to consider things on a county by county basis,
>> trying to keep things as consistent as possible. ...
>>
>
> A web application I'm developing straddles many counties.  So I've decided
> to adopt the scheme:
>   code-for-council:code-for-**path-adopted-by-council
> Examples are:
>   BM:TWY/16/2
>   BM:TWY/19/1
>   ON:265/29
>   ON:265/33
>
> For the code-for-council (e.g., BM and ON), I've chosen to use the two
> letter codes that are used by the OS Opendata 1:50 000 Scale Gazetteer that
> is described at: http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.**uk/oswebsite/products/50k-
> **gazetteer/index.html<http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/products/50k-gazetteer/index.html>
> It's in field 12 of their colon-separated file.  There are 208 values.
>
> Is this sensible?
>
> --
> Barry Cornelius
> http://www.thehs2.com/
> http://www.oxonpaths.com/
> http://www.northeastraces.com/
> http://www.barrycornelius.com/
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gb<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>



-- 
Gregory
osm at livingwithdragons.com
http://www.livingwithdragons.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20120608/c81d7df0/attachment.html>