[Talk-GB] New Data in PRoW Comparison Tool

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

I've just added another county -- East Sussex -- to my PRoW Comparison
Tool: http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/east-sussex/

I've also been doing a bit of updating of my table of council Rights
of Way Open Data at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/open-data/ .
Apart from the lines with grey text, it should be reasonably accurate
now. Do let me know if you see anything that needs updating there, or
would like to help with updating it or obtaining data.

If anyone would like any additional counties added to the PRoW
Comparison Tool, then the criteria (some legal, some technical) can be
found at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/#add-authority .
Counties that are ready to go are marked with *'s in the Open Data
table linked above. Others will need a bit more work (requesting data,
confirming licenses, getting parish ID lookup tables, etc.) but that
doesn't mean they can't be done. Some requests to councils are already
pending, and others can be made where there is interest.

Best wishes,

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] MapThePaths update: live edit of designation and prow_ref

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hi,


Another update to MapThePaths - you can now perform live OSM edits of the 
designation and prow_ref tags of ways.


You need to login with your OSM account, select 'Edit' and then zoom in to the 
highest level.

The live OSM data is overlaid on the council data when in live edit mode - 
apologies if this is a bit unclear, still trying to figure out a way to nicely 
show both layers.


Note that if you are not in an OGL council area, it will not allow you to do 
any editing.


This is worked out by calculating what council paths are within the bounding 
box of the OSM way. If there is at least one OGL council path and zero non-OGL 
paths, you're allowed to edit it.


Reminder of URL - www.mapthepaths.org.uk/



Nick

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - updates

[Nick Whitelegg]

OK. Will modify MapThePaths to show the parish ID as well as the actual 
reference number.


Nick



From: Roger Calvert 
Sent: 02 July 2018 19:20:20
To: Nick Whitelegg; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - updates

Thanks, Nick. In fact Barry shows all 6 figures, but with a gap between the 
parish prefix and the PROW reference number.

Regards,

Roger

On 02/07/2018 18:24, Nick Whitelegg wrote:


Hello Roger,


Yes, I think I've noticed the 6-figure PROW IDs when I've been in the Lake 
District.

The IDs I use are those that Barry Cornelius (rowmaps) uses, as my data is 
taken from his site. Not sure if he has access to the full IDs, but it's worth 
contacting him as he would probably know - his site is rowmaps.com.


Nick


From: Roger Calvert 
Sent: 02 July 2018 11:17:47
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - updates

I have found a difference in the references given in Map The Paths my area from 
that on the local authority maps, and I suspect it is universal.

The paths are given with a 3 figure reference, but on the maps issued by the 
Lake District National Park Authority to volunteer footpath surveyors, they 
have a 6 figure reference, the first three referring to the Civil Parish in 
which they lie. (The LDNPA maintains footpaths in the National Park under 
contract with Cumbria County Council.)

For example, OSM way 2186193630 coincides with footpath reference 049 in Lowick 
parish, but is numbered 551049 on the LDNPA map. All paths in Lowick are 
prefixed 551. Where this path crosses into the next parish (Blawith and 
Subberthwaite) it becomes ref 016 on Map The Paths, but is 505016 on the LDNPA 
map. All paths in this parish are prefixed 505.

The 3 figure references are certainly re-used in different parishes. For 
example, there is a bridleway (OSM 54189587)  also with the reference 016 
(539016) less than 2 km away in the adjoining Kirkby Ireleth parish (it becomes 
505023 where it crosses into Blawith and Subberthwaite, and I have spotted 
another 023 a few miles away in adjoining Colton parish), so that confusion is 
certainly possible.

I do not know whether these parish prefixes are available under a suitable 
license, but if they are, I think they would be a useful addition to the Map 
The Paths references.

Regards,

Rogerc
--


Roger Calvert


--


Roger Calvert

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - updates

[Adam Snape]

Sorry,

I mean to say we need a way to tag this 'name format' (official_name
perhaps? Or prow_name...)

Kind regards,

Adam

On 3 July 2018 at 09:09, Adam Snape  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Very. very few Defiunitive statements include arcane numeric references
> like that. They almost always use the parish name and path number eg.
> Newton Footpath 1. I think we really this 'name' format as it is something
> we could consistently do nationally.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam
>
> On 2 July 2018 at 23:44, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
> robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2 July 2018 at 11:17, Roger Calvert  wrote:
>> > I have found a difference in the references given in Map The Paths my
>> area
>> > from that on the local authority maps, and I suspect it is universal.
>> >
>> > The paths are given with a 3 figure reference, but on the maps issued
>> by the
>> > Lake District National Park Authority to volunteer footpath surveyors,
>> they
>> > have a 6 figure reference, the first three referring to the Civil
>> Parish in
>> > which they lie. (The LDNPA maintains footpaths in the National Park
>> under
>> > contract with Cumbria County Council.)
>>
>> On rowmaps, there's a standardised format whereby the parish
>> name/number goes in one field and the path number goes in another. The
>> display then joins them back together again with a space. Different
>> counties use different formats for combining the numbers, possibly
>> using a slash of dash between them, or possibly including the parish
>> name rather than a parish number. It's also possible that the format
>> used in the GIS data is not the actual legal format used in the
>> Definitive Map and Statement, i.e. the parish numbers might just be an
>> internal convenience. The interpretation of the rowmaps data therefore
>> needs a bit of care.
>>
>> In the case of Cumbria, I've just made an FOI/EIR request for a list
>> of the parish names corresponding to the numbers, and asked whether
>> the numbers are used in the Definitive Statement. See
>> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_rights_of_way_gis_data_5
>>
>> Robert.
>>
>> --
>> Robert Whittaker
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - updates

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

Very. very few Defiunitive statements include arcane numeric references
like that. They almost always use the parish name and path number eg.
Newton Footpath 1. I think we really this 'name' format as it is something
we could consistently do nationally.

Kind regards,

Adam

On 2 July 2018 at 23:44, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2 July 2018 at 11:17, Roger Calvert  wrote:
> > I have found a difference in the references given in Map The Paths my
> area
> > from that on the local authority maps, and I suspect it is universal.
> >
> > The paths are given with a 3 figure reference, but on the maps issued by
> the
> > Lake District National Park Authority to volunteer footpath surveyors,
> they
> > have a 6 figure reference, the first three referring to the Civil Parish
> in
> > which they lie. (The LDNPA maintains footpaths in the National Park under
> > contract with Cumbria County Council.)
>
> On rowmaps, there's a standardised format whereby the parish
> name/number goes in one field and the path number goes in another. The
> display then joins them back together again with a space. Different
> counties use different formats for combining the numbers, possibly
> using a slash of dash between them, or possibly including the parish
> name rather than a parish number. It's also possible that the format
> used in the GIS data is not the actual legal format used in the
> Definitive Map and Statement, i.e. the parish numbers might just be an
> internal convenience. The interpretation of the rowmaps data therefore
> needs a bit of care.
>
> In the case of Cumbria, I've just made an FOI/EIR request for a list
> of the parish names corresponding to the numbers, and asked whether
> the numbers are used in the Definitive Statement. See
> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_rights_of_way_gis_data_5
>
> Robert.
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb