[Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

Colin Smale colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Sun Nov 5 09:09:41 UTC 2017


On 2017-11-05 00:52, Dave F wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Comments inline.
> 
> On 04/11/2017 20:07, Adam Snape wrote: 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Could you clarify what you mean by "modern civil parish boundaries".

Or what you otherwise mean by "definitive map 'parish'". 

> 2. A standardized format could make it easier for data consumers to utilise the tagged information.
> I believe all LAs (admin_level=6) and parishes (admin_level=10) have been added so the 'standardised' as described on the wiki contains no unique data that can't be retrieved from within osm.

The CP coverage is very good in the south and midlands but is largely
absent in the (far) north of England. I am working on it.... 

How do the LA's tag footpaths in unparished areas?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20171105/c24f43d5/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list