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

[Tony OSM]

Hi

The data file  sent by Lancs CC contained the District Number, Parish 
Number, Type, District Name, Parish Name plus coordinates list.

The first entry in the kml file is

     <ExtendedData><SchemaData schemaUrl="#PROW_Shapefile">
         <SimpleData name="OBJECTID_1">33</SimpleData>
         <SimpleData name="OBJECTID_2">120</SimpleData>
         <SimpleData name="OBJECTID">16470.00000000</SimpleData>
         <SimpleData name="PATH_TYPE">Footpath</SimpleData>
         <SimpleData name="PATH_NUMBE">18.00000000</SimpleData>
         <SimpleData name="CORE">yes</SimpleData>
         <SimpleData name="DISTRICT">BURNLEY</SimpleData>
         <SimpleData name="PARISH">HAPTON</SimpleData>
         <SimpleData name="DIST_NO">12.00000000</SimpleData>
         <SimpleData name="PARISH_NO">7.00000000</SimpleData>
         <SimpleData name="PATH_LABEL">FP 18</SimpleData>
         <SimpleData name="LABEL2">12-7-FP 18</SimpleData>
         <SimpleData 
name="PROW_URL">http://lccmapzone/mapzone/asp/prow/general.aspx?path=FP18&dis=12&par=7</SimpleData>
         <SimpleData name="IMS_SYMBOL">FP</SimpleData>
         <SimpleData name="SHAPE_FID">120</SimpleData>
         <SimpleData name="SHAPE_LEN">768.56943096600</SimpleData>
     </SchemaData></ExtendedData>
<LineString><coordinates>-2.27639184743805,53.772975749866191 
-2.276419499154496,53.773014353403141 
-2.276473919958041,53.773056738569473 
-2.276547825688409,53.773102501481461 
-2.276629364748936,53.773140809891281 .......

The data does contain the relevant information in this case Hapton FP 
18. Some people used the LABEL2 field 12-7-FP-18 which is easier to grab 
for display - but the point is that Lancs CC have provided both formats.

I have shared a list of District & Parish names and numbers.

Rob has an experimental map & tool of Lancashire showing the format of 
Parish Type Number - which I have found to be very useful recently in 
labelling PROW's in my district 9. (Didn't know that Judge Dredd came to 
Chorley!). I understand that Rob will make that experimental map widely 
available if people agree to the Lancashire format, as his tool also 
checks for well formed PROW refs, correct lengths, and completeness of 
implementation of the PROW set per parish.

We have the data from Lancs CC - we need to agree the best way to use 
it, and only the ref is stopping that.

Regards

Tony Shield

TonyS999


On 11/05/2020 09:07, nathan case wrote:
>
> I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name).
>
> At least in Lancashire’s case, I think the use of the numerical ID in 
> place of the parish name should be acceptable. The numerical parish ID 
> is what is used on the council’s own PROW map – as well as the open 
> data they released (and thus the easiest to import into OSM). It would 
> be unrealistic to expect mappers to then cross-check the parish ID 
> with a name, especially since that data is not (as far as I’m aware) 
> easily (openly?) available.
>
> Of course, if third party sites want to then use lookup tables to 
> convert parish ID into parish name, then that would be perfectly 
> acceptable.
>
> The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support.
>
> Regards.
>
> *From:*Tony OSM <tonyosm9 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* 10 May 2020 12:29
> *To:* talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public 
> Rights of Way - legal vs reality)
>
> 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  <mailto: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/20200511/1cfaa108/attachment.htm>