[Talk-GB] Prow_ref format
mikee at saxicola.co.uk
Mon Nov 6 13:23:29 UTC 2017
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 12:46:34 +0000
Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > A typical code is "PB|SP29|4/1"
> Be warned, this is not the format that Pembrokeshire use on the pdf scans
> on their website. It seems to be GIS data only and may be a format Barry
Indeed so. ON the PDF it's referenced as "SP29/4"
> PB is "Pembrokeshire"!
> As Pembrokeshire don't use parish names I'd go for prow_ref="FP SP29/4/1"
> assuming this is a footpath.
The FP part seems redundant as it's already tagged as a footpath elsewhere however, "FP SP29/4" would be correct I guess.
> On 6 Nov 2017 12:30 p.m., "Rob Nickerson" <rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dave,
> > I think the point was that nobody has a common format. Some LAs use a
> > different style when they refer to the same path in the definitive
> > statement when compared to the GIS data.
> > Of course we can manipulate OGL data. That's included in the licence. If
> > we do change then it should be obvious to the LA what we mean if we speak
> > with them.
> > I will be sticking with the wiki for any I map as this has been previously
> > discussed and has therefore grown traction according to taginfo.
> > For Leicestershire it seems to be an obvious change: they don't include
> > Parish so just don't include it. So I'd map prow_ref="FP J16" as an example.
> > P.s. I thought folks usually don't like to add third party database
> > references to OSM. Hence we came to an agreement of how prow_ref should be
> > *constructed* based on OGL data (not just a copy of one of the third party
> > attribute values).
> > Thanks,
> > Rob
More information about the Talk-GB