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@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] weeklyOSM #511 2020-04-28-2020-05-04
The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 511, is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of a lot of things happening in the openstreetmap world: https://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/13118/ Enjoy! Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in to https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login with your OSM account. Read more about how to write a post here: http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm weeklyOSM? who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages where?: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)
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@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)
This may have got lost in the discussion about highway=no, but I'd like to get some feedback on what prow_ref format is best to use in Lancashire. See my previous message below: On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 19:23, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > The format of the Right of Way numbers seems to depend on what > map/data you look at. I think it would be highly desirable if we could > agree on a single format to use throughout the whole of Lancashire in > OpenStreetMap. > > I think the Lancashire online map at > https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/ > is a relatively recent innovation. (By the way, you shouldn't use that > map for OSM mapping, as there's an OS-copyrighted backdrop, which you > might inadvertently take information from, or use relative positioning > information from.) The Council's online map uses "1-2-FP 3", while > mapthepaths uses "1-2 3" (which comes from older GIS data Lancashire > released and was given to rowmaps.com). On my tool, I've currently > adopted the "[parish name] [type] [number]" format, which is the > default if I don't select anything else. > > So what to standardise on? The "1-2" part in the numbers above is a > parish code, which I think is probably an internal GIS thing within > the council, rather than what the official legal documents use to > refer to the paths. If you look at how they actually refer to the > paths, e.g. in the DMMO register at > http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/dmmoview/index.asp you'll see > they almost always refer to them by the parish name, type and number. > There's some discrepancy over whether a Public Footpath is PF or FP > (or occasionally PFP). But on the computer-generated order maps, it's > always FP, with BW used for Bridleway and BOAT for Byways Open to All > Traffic. I couldn't find a Restricted Byway on a map. The parish names > (rather than ID numbers) are also a lot easier for humans to deal with > when mapping. > > Based on the above, my preference would be to agree to use the > "[parish name] [type] [number]" format. But if it's decided to use > something else, I'll happily change my tool to whatever is decided. > (Although I can only set one format per county, so it will need to be > county-wide.) Hopefully Nick will be able / willing to do the same on > mapthepaths. (I've since been in touch with Nick, and he's keen to work together so we have use the same format for each county in our two tools.) Many thanks, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 19:33, Mike Baggaley via Talk-GB wrote: > >Highway=no seems acceptable to me where a path is permanently physically > >blocked by a building or such-like. We're not serving anyone by directing > >people into wals. I do, however, disagree with its use to tag definitive > >rights of way which are useable but which merely deviate from the route a > >mapper mapped on the ground. Eg. I don't think a highway=no tag should be > >added to a cross field definitive footpath just because a path round the > >field has been mapped. > > In the case where a path has been permanently blocked, I would suggest > disused:highway=footway/bridleway, abandonded:highway=footway or > removed:highway=footway, depending on whether the path is still visible and > whether the blockage would be relatively easy or difficult to remove. This > seems to me to be much better than highway=no. That's a good suggestion. I wouldn't completely rule out using highway=no, but if one of your other suggestions fits it would be good to use it. I've now added those options to the "missing highway" checks my PRoW tool does, so if one of them have been used, it won't complain about the lack of a highway=* tag on a Right of Way. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
