[Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

[Philip Barnes]

I don't believe that the type is needed as it can be derived from the designation tag. 

As a regular user of rights of way references to report problems to my local highway authority I can vouch that the parish code based GIS reference is far easier to use than the colloquial reference suggested by the wiki.

The wiki method also neglects the vital link number included in the GIS reference.

Phil (trigpoint) 

On 6 November 2017 12:46:34 GMT+00:00, 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
>made.
>
>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.
>
>Thanks,
>Rob
>
>
>
>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
>>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20171106/c95055f7/attachment-0001.html>