[Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

Rob Nickerson rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com
Fri Jan 4 17:15:47 GMT 2013

I did wonder whether someone would ask something like that!

On "name=", I would avoid this because people do not refer to e.g. "Abbots
Bickington Footpath 1" in general conversation (although perhaps that’s
because we never knew the names until the Local Authorities started to
release the data).

In regards to "prow_name" and "prow_ref" my concern is that each Local
Authority uses differing conventions. In the example of Devon they have
provided a reference in both parish ID and parish Name format. Not all do
this. For those that just release e.g. "Acle FP1" then would this be a
prow_name or a prow_ref...? Due to this confusion, I suggest sticking with
the "dominant" reference (used on the Local Authoritiy's map) as suggested
by Barry, but lets see what the others think.


On 4 January 2013 17:04, Ed Loach <ed at loach.me.uk> wrote:

> Not that Essex have released their data, so I’ve not had to worry about
> this, but wouldn’t this be an argument for prow_ref and prow_name? Or even
> prow_ref and name?****
> ** **
> *From:* Rob Nickerson [mailto:rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 04 January 2013 17:01
> *To:* talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=****
> ** **
> I agree that if there is a choice for prow_ref such as:****
>     <SimpleData name="CODE">801FP1</SimpleData>****
>     <SimpleData name="NUMBER1">Abbots Bickington Footpath 1</SimpleData>****
> ** **
> then I would use the same as the councils interactive map. If this isn't
> possible I would prefer written parish names rather than codes. That is
> prow_ref=Abbots Bickington Footpath 1****
> Rob****
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20130104/0d97b9bf/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list