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

Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com
Thu May 31 19:27:41 BST 2012


On 31 May 2012 18:03, Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I think this is going to be complicated by the fact that different
councils use different schemes for their numbering. I believe that the
traditional method would be for paths to be numbered with a sequential
number within each parish. The Definitive Statement forms often make
use of the abbreviations "FP", "BR", "RB" and "BY" for the four
classes of right of way, so I've been using the following format:

ref = "<Parish Name> <Type> <Number>"

where <Parish Name> is the name of the parish (which may itself
contain spaces), <Type> is one of the strings "FP", "BR", "RB" and
"BY", and <number> is the path number (usually an integer, and without
any leading zeros, and without any spaces). I've used spaces as
separators, as it's the simplest option, and the one typically used on
the definitive statements themselves. I don't see any reason to
artificially introduce something different.

Some councils seem to have adjusted their numbering schemes in recent
years, possibly as part of the process of creating digital mapping.
I've seen an example where the parishes are given a numerical ID, and
where a council has given each path a new number that is unique within
the whole county. (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'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. I would have thought
for those using a traditional numbering we could agree on a single
format. I'm not so sure about new variants though.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker



More information about the Talk-GB mailing list