[Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

I'm of the view that using a standard format would be rather unlikely to
result in confusion in correspondence with the LA, but am equally happy
with using the LA's version. Some thoughts:

1.  We definitely shouldn't attempt to amend the definitive map 'parish' to
correspond to modern civil parish boundaries. That could cause problems.

2. A standardized format could make it easier for data consumers to utilise
the tagged information.

3. There often isn't consistency of formatting in official usage. What
might appear on the definitive statement as 'Wiggington Bridleway No.7',
might appear in orders as 'Bridleway number 7 in the Parish of Wiggington'
and on the open data GIS files as 'Wiggington BW 7'

4. A minority of authorities number different categories of RoW separately,
so a parish may contain both a footpath 1 and a bridleway 1. If we do
standardize a format, including the category seems a good way of ensuring
we don't end up with duplicate prow_refs in such parishes.

5. It would be preferable to use the established acronym BOAT for Byway
Open to All Traffic, rather than BY as suggested in the Wiki

Regards,

Adam


On 4 Nov 2017 5:49 p.m., "Dave F" <davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com> wrote:

Hi

I've started adding Prow_ref=* to the paths within my Local Authority. I've
been using the format as decided by them.

I noticed another mapper has already added a few, but using the format by
Barry Cornelius at rowmaps.com. I think this shouldn't be used as it's
Barry's own concoction.

As the LA is the organisation someone would most likely converse with about
PROWs, it seemed sensible to use the format issued by them. It makes
verification of any updates *much* easier.

To check I looked at the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org
/wiki/Key:prow_ref

I wasn't really surprised to find another format recommended. A couple
things appear wrong with this:
* including the parish name in any format other than as issued by the LA
will lead to confusion if their boundaries are amended
* path abbreviations are unnecessary as their classifications are already
defined in other OSM tags (highway & designation)

Having a 'standard' within OSM seems counter productive as it would make it
non-standard with the vast majority of LAs.

Your thoughts?

DaveF

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20171104/179b3973/attachment.html>