[Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

Dave F davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com
Mon Nov 6 11:57:43 UTC 2017


On 05/11/2017 12:42, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> >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.

"internal consistency within each LA" has no relevance to OSM. A 
'standard' isn't a standard if it *only* relates within OSM.

>
> 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!!

You miss the point. 'M1' *is* the ref issued by Highways England & is 
added to OSM as such. We should do the same for prow_refs as issued by 
LAs (even if they each have a different format).

What the wiki says is the equivalent of manipulating 'M1' so it reads 
something like 'Yorkshire/Rob/MW1'

>
> So, in summary, can't we just stick to what we previously agreed
Has it been discussed anywhere other than the one in 2013?


> and diverge only when this clearly doesn't work for a participial LA 
> (or which I expect that to be very rare).

The wiki manipulation recommendation doesn't work for any LA (or indeed, 
anybody) as it's unique to OSM.

Cheers
DaveF

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




More information about the Talk-GB mailing list