[Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way in Oxfordshire and Hampshire
sk53.osm at gmail.com
Tue Jun 27 12:33:19 UTC 2017
This format is quite common. It can be transformed into the other form
(I've done this for one of the Sussexes, and, I suspect, Oxon), but I think
if we are using prow_refs for anything at all it is to communicate with the
relevant Highway Authority, so we should use what they use (and in
particular what is used on diversion notices).
On 27 June 2017 at 11:56, Pierre Riteau <pierre at pierreriteau.name> wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> Thanks a lot for adding Oxfordshire to your comparison tool!
> However it reports much lower mapping coverage than I expected. It
> appears to be due to a mismatch of prow_ref format. I know that at least
> in and around Oxford, most paths have been mapped with a prow_ref based
> on the definitive statement in the style of "ParishNumber/PathNumber".
> See this bridleway as an example using prow_ref 320/14:
> The prow_ref Wiki page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:prow_ref)
> suggests using "ParishName PathType PathNumber", such as "Oxford BR 14".
> Is that the latest recommendation from the community? You seem to be an
> expert on the topic!
> I would be happy to move to this format for Oxfordshire if it is also
> adopted elsewhere. How long would it take for your comparison tool to
> include updated data?
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2017, at 11:30, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> > Some of you have have already come across my Public Rights of Way
> > comparison tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ which
> > aims to help mappers trying to complete the mapping of Rights of Way
> > in their area.
> > I've recently added data for two additional counties: Oxfordshire and
> > Hampshire to the tool. The other counties already there are
> > Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk.
> > Hopefully the tool and how to use it should be fairly
> > self-explanatory. The basic idea is that it compares official council
> > data to what's currently in OSM and flags up possible errors and
> > omissions for manual checking.
> > I'd like to add data for additional authorities. The constraints here
> > are my time to actually do the adding, and having the data available
> > in a suitable format and under a suitable licence. If anyone has any
> > requests for new counties / unitary authorities, then please let me
> > know. If you can get the authority to make its PRoW data available
> > online under the Open Government Licence, then that will save me some
> > time too.
> > Best wishes,
> > Robert.
> > --
> > Robert Whittaker
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB