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

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

I can confirm that the parish name data was in the council's original
disclosure and is contained in the ESRI shapefile I passed to rowmaps. It's
available under an open licence (OGL v3)
https://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/LA/prows.zip . I think Barry at rowmaps
then trimmed some of his data for teh maps that display on his own site so
that each county follows a common format.

Kind regards,

Adam


On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 09:08, nathan case <nathancase at outlook.com> 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
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200511/7f2c6185/attachment-0001.htm>