[Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

Rob Nickerson rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com
Sun Nov 5 12:42:11 UTC 2017


>I recommended BY for consistency with the other two-letter
>abbreviations (FP, BR, RB) that were more universal.

+1

Given that there is little internal consistency within each LA and that
these are rarely even marked on the ground, my preference would be to stick
with the standard as described on the wiki unless this does not fit with a
LA.

For Warwickshire CC I [1] came to a different prow_ref than Robert W [2].
Where Robert went with just SD91a, I opted for FP Combrook SD91a as that
fitted with the wiki standard.

Finally, I understand that FP etc can be determined from the designation
tag but I do not see this as a reason to omit the data. It is useful to the
end user, just as the M in ref=M1 is for motorways!!

So, in summary, can't we just stick to what we previously agreed and
diverge only when this clearly doesn't work for a participial LA (or which
I expect that to be very rare).

Thanks,
Rob

[1] https://www.loomio.org/d/jUifS6tM/prow-map
[2]
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/warks/stratford-on-avon/stratford-on-avon-rural-district/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20171105/85704024/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list