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

[Tony OSM]

What a useful insight into a parentless system.

Tony

On 12/05/2020 18:02, Philip Barnes wrote:
> 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 
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> <mailto: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/20200512/07a55249/attachment.htm>