[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.


This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list