[Talk-GB] PRoW Ref codes (WAS:Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence)
Nick Whitelegg
Nick.Whitelegg at solent.ac.uk
Thu May 31 19:01:04 BST 2012
I guess the thing to do is just use the most common reference.
I am aware of several schemes:
Hampshire uses parish plus number e.g. "Tichborne Footpath 5", West Sussex uses a county-wide, 3 or 4 digit number (e.g. 1263, 2005) and I've also seen XXX/YY (in Wrexham borough, Wales) and very large, 6-digit numbers (Cumbria). We should probably just make it free form rather than enforce a particular format.
Nick
-----Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com> wrote: -----
To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
From: Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com>
Date: 31/05/2012 06:04PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref codes (WAS:Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence)
Fantastic news about Hamps PRoW data :-) Anyone else contacting their local council can use this as an example case.
Q: Do we need to have a suggested way of tagging the reference numbers in ref=* ? So far I have seen the following in use:
* Parish / path no. / link no. ==> For example: 417/26/1 (where the parish is a number code)
* Area RoW_type Path_no. ==> For example: North Tawton Bridleway 18
Delimiters seen include ' ' , '/' and '-'.
A: Can I throw out the suggestion that we use:
* Parish-RoWType-PathNo<-LinkNo.> (where the bit in <> brackets is optional). I assume that use of '-' is allowed.
Regards,
RobJN
_______________________________________________
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/20120531/f4faa34d/attachment.html>
More information about the Talk-GB
mailing list