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

nathan case nathancase at outlook.com
Mon May 11 13:11:15 UTC 2020


Thanks Tony and Adam for your responses. It is good to know that LCC have released the parish IDs in the data as well. Makes a lookup table easy to produce.

It still remains that if I were a casual mapper and wanted to add an unmapped path to OSM, the primary source for the prow_ref is the council’s map. That map uses parish ID not parish name (i.e. it shows Label2). It is then complicated that other sources use an mix of formats. (Even for me, parish IDs are the most straightforward way of adding prow_ref data to OSM.)

So, as I said, my view is that Parish name and Parish ID should be both acceptable (though, of course, only one should be used per PROW). They serve the same function and can easily be crossed matched by third party services.


From: Tony OSM <tonyosm9 at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:56 AM
To: nathan case <nathancase at outlook.com>; talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)


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><mailto:tonyosm9 at gmail.com>
Sent: 10 May 2020 12:29
To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org<mailto: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/20200511/7dfbf6be/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list