[Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

[Tony OSM]

I agree with Adam. In the published path orders fixed to lamposts etc 
the written description includes parish, type, number. Sometimes in that 
order sometimes type, number, parish. There is no consistency.

Parish, type, number is likely to be understood by every user of OSM and 
I have used it in communication with Lancs CC who appear to understand it.

Regards

TonyS999

On 10/05/2020 12:03, Adam Snape wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I agree 
> with Rob's preference for parish, type, number as it is more idiomatic 
> and reflects how the routes are most commonly actually referred to in 
> communication. As Rob noted, the council doesn't use the numeric 
> references with any consistency even within its own electronic systems 
> (with the format on the online map being at variance with the 
> underlying dataset). I can confirm that neither the definitive maps 
> nor statements for Lancashire use any such references.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200510/9e7c2d2a/attachment.htm>