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

[Philip Barnes]

On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 21:35 +0100, SK53 wrote:
> 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.
 The Leicestershire and Rutland uses a Zone letter followed by a
number, there is no connection between path numbers and parish and no
obvious reason for the zone boundaries. I suspect they were just
numbered 1-99 and then moved on the the next zone with numbers 100+
being paths created later. Until 2011 I assumed that was the normal way
of things.
Rutland uses the same system which it inherited from Leicestershire,
Rutland was in Leicestershire zone E hence Rutland paths all have an E
prefix. Paths crossing the border into Leicestershire have the same
number in both counties.
The City of Leicester is unique again, its definitive map arrived in
the 2000s shortly after it became a unitary authority having been
exempted in the original act. Wrongly in my humble opinion, along with
other urban areas. 
Their scheme uses zone numbers which are deliminated by the radial A
roads. I do remember seeing this for the first time as part of
Leicestershire and Rutland Rights of Way Committee and we thought,
different but it does make sense.

> 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.
> 
I suppose I am in a slightly different place to many mappers in that I
am a Ramblers Rights of Way Officer. 
Here in Shropshire we use the more traditional parish scheme. 
I do prefer the parish code, there are 202 parishes and I have not
memorised them all yet but from the first code you can derive the
division (old district) which gets you into the right area and is a big
clue to geography.
There could be a place for both schemes however if OSM is to useful for
communicating with the rights of way department we need to be
consistent with their usage, including the link number. 
The link number changes each time a right of way meets another public
highway or right of way. Government assessments of the state of rights
of way are based on the percentage of usable links, and yes I was
confused when this came up back in Leicestershire, especially as their
scheme ignores such detail.
Phil (trigpoint)


> 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
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________Talk-GB mailing 
> listTalk-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/20200512/e10bed07/attachment-0001.htm>