[Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

Adam Snape adam.c.snape at gmail.com
Sun Nov 5 11:59:28 UTC 2017


I agree with what Robert has said and think he has clarified many points
admirably. I think we need to be clear that in many cases what we will be
recording under prow_ref is a working reference used in the council's GIS
system, not part of the definitive official record of rights of way.

Colin asked about unparished areas. Where people refer to 'parishes' when
talking about the definitive maps they're usually talking about whatever
area was used to group the paths when the definitive maps were first drawn
up and paths numbered. In (then) parished areas this was usually the
parish, indeed parishes were individually responsible for drawing up the
draft maps and submitting them to the County Council. Paths in (then)
unparished areas were usually grouped by the relevant Urban District or
County Borough. With some exceptions these groupings usually remain to this
day. Even new paths added to the map  are usually grouped with these old
boundaries for consistency. Thus, the path recorded as Wiggington Bridleway
No. 7 might not fall in the current civil parish or unparished area of



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/20171105/4e7421b3/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list