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

Peter Rounce peter at rounce.me.uk
Fri Jun 22 06:11:18 BST 2012


That's great news.
I'm interested in your correspondence, which is clearly working well.
Also wanted to add a link to the current Definitive Statements of Public
Rights of Way status updates, here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_local_councils

Regards
Peter


On 21 June 2012 23:55, Robert Whittaker (OSM) <
robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20120622/453f3acf/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list