[Talk-GB] New Data in PRoW Comparison Tool

[Andrew Hain]

Could we follow the signage for the prow_ref format where the authority puts it on signs?

--
Andrew
________________________________
From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com>
Sent: 05 July 2018 09:17:10
To: talk-gb
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] New Data in PRoW Comparison Tool

On 3 July 2018 at 15:10, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
<robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've just added another county -- East Sussex -- to my PRoW Comparison
> Tool: http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/east-sussex/

Devon now added as well: http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/devon/

There were a number of different prow_ref formats in use in Devon. The
most popular was of the form "Chivelstone Bridleway 6" (with the
parish name and the RoW type spelt out). This also what the county
council uses on their online interactive map. So for now I've set my
tool to use this style for Devon. Other formats with significant use
in Devon include "Chivelstone BR 6" (with the RoW type abbreviated),
"Chivelstone 6" (without the type at all), "211BR11" (presumably the
211 is a parish code), and "DN|Bampton|2" (which is the artificial
format used by rowmaps.com).

I don't think we can have a single standard for prow_ref formats
across the whole county, but I do think we should adopt a single
format within each authority area. Given the usage (in OSM and by the
Council), I'd suggest going with the "Chivelstone Bridleway 6" style
for Devon. I'm going to invite some of the mappers who've been working
on Devon PRoWs to comment here with their thoughts.

Robert.

--
Robert Whittaker

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20180705/08917a2a/attachment.html>