[Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 164, Issue 16

[SK53]

Its quite possible that this just cannot be done. I believe Leicestershire,
and consequently Rutland as well, does not use any reference to tehe parish
in the identifiers used in official documents. Instead all paths consist if
a letter followed by a number. I once tried to extract parishes from this
but I dont think the identifiers colocate with parish boundaries. Phil
Barnes will know more.

On the whole I also prefer the use of names in identifiers stored on OSM. I
suspect some of the completely numeric ones represent system specific keys.

Jerry

On Mon, 11 May 2020, 20:48 Mike Baggaley, <mike at tvage.co.uk> wrote:

> In my view we need to be putting out a consistent UK wide message
> (preferably parish name, type and number) and not confusing potential
> mappers by having different formats in different counties. We have enough
> trouble already with path references variously being put in name, ref or
> local_ref instead of prow_ref, so need a simple unambiguous standard.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> >Just wanted to add that in my view the other reason to list by parish
> name,
> >type and number is that these directly relate to the legal record. Parish
> >Footpath 11 has usually been Parish Footpath 11 since the 1950s and will
> >continue to be so unless a formal legal process is followed to change
> >something. The numeric references for districts and parishes exist only in
> >an internal database of relatively recent creation. If 5 years down the
> >line the council adopts a new system any numeric references in OSM would
> >then be meaningless.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200511/1578d0d6/attachment.htm>