[Talk-GB] Prow_ref format
davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com
Mon Nov 6 11:13:23 UTC 2017
On 05/11/2017 10:42, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> On 4 November 2017 at 17:49, Dave F <davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> I'd agree with that. However, one should be careful about drawing
> conclusions about what the LA's official referencing system actually
> is. The legal record of Rights of Way is held in the Definitive Map
> and Statement, whereas we may well be using an electronic
> representation of the definitive map for our mapping. In translating
> the data to their computer systems, the LA may have altered the
> reference format from that used on the Definitive Map. As others have
> already noted, there are also inconsistencies in how an LA itself will
> refer to their own paths.
I'm unsure why or how often "altered reference format" happens, but
would be a LA internal matter & irrelevant to OSM. We should be using
the references provided to us under OGL even if "different LAs use
different reference styles and with different degrees of consistency" or
there's "obviously different de facto standard in use by an LA".
OSM can't use any other format used by LA's if not issued under OGL.
OSM has to use a reference that relates to other databases. Concocting
our own makes these paths impossible to be "uniformly interpreted and
processed". AFAICS "Parish FP 12" isn't a "common standard"?
I've had a conversation with someone at my LA about a FHRS
establishment. I was able to indicate precisely & immediately which
restaurant by using the FHRS:ID number which was include in OSM
directly, *without* alteration, from their database. I would not be able
to do that for the equivalent footpath using OSM's wiki recommendations.
Are any LAs, that you've looked at, not including parish codes within
> But I would agree that we need to allow different formats to be used for different LAs.
Good to hear.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
More information about the Talk-GB