Re: [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,  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@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] PRoW archive

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 20:30, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 20:50 +0200, BD wrote:
>> I was looking at the discussion about PRoW and how to request the 
>> information from local council. I wonder if there is a comprehensive 
>> list/central location where we have stored information regarding which 
>> council has been approached and what was the answer (if any).
>>
>> It would make sense to save time (ours and councils) by not duplicating 
>> requests for information which might be already released.
>
> Have a look at https://rowmaps.com

That site is an excellent collection of all the data that's available,
with the added benefit of having it conveniently transformed into a
common format for downstream use. As far as OSM use is concerned  are
some licensing issues with some of the datasets there though, so you
need to be careful. Perhaps closer to what Bart was looking for is the
list I maintain:

https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/open-data/

Any corrections and additions to that page would be most welcome.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

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

[Mike Baggaley]

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@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW archive

[Philip Barnes]

On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 20:50 +0200, BD wrote:
> Hello again,
> 
> I was looking at the discussion about PRoW and how to request the
> information from local council. I wonder if there is a comprehensive
> list/central location where we have stored information regarding
> which council has been approached and what was the answer (if any).
> 
> It would make sense to save time (ours and councils) by not
> duplicating requests for information which might be already released.
> 
Hi Bart

Have a look at https://rowmaps.com

Cheers Phil


___
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)

[nathan case]

> Unless you've been given permission by the copyright holder to make use of a 
> map like that, then it's off-limits for use in OSM. The map at 
> https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/
is currently not working for me, but is does say "(c) Crown copyright and 
database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023320" below it. It's likely that it 
was showing lines for Rights of Way on top of an Ordnance Survey base map -- in 
which case it certainly couldn't be used for OSM mapping. You might be able to 
get permission to use the overlay lines, but you'd have to detach them from the 
base map before using them. Otherwise you might be inferring location details 
from the OS base map. Ordnance Survey are quite strict on what they consider to 
be derived data from their maps, so OSM needs to be very careful around them.

Understood but surely it is acceptable to draw the line in OSM making use of 
one's own GPS, or from visibility in the satellite layer(s) or OS OpenData, and 
then use the Council's map to get the prow_ref? Ordnance Survey do not have 
copyright on the prow ref and the LCC have made their prow refs open access. 

Or are you saying because one has to cross reference one's own drawing with the 
OS map, that OS own the copyright on the Council's data? Seems an over stretch?

I'm aware that this is somewhat diverging from the discussion. 

In the end, the council clearly doesn't seem to care - either approach is fine 
by them as they use both. We're the ones imposing a restriction on the data 
format for our own purposes. I will go with parish name, rather than ID if 
that's what's agreed, but unfortunately I cannot edit all the ones I have 
already added using the parish ID rather than name (happy for them to be auto 
edited using the lookup table Tony has shared).

Cheers.



-Original Message-
From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)  
Sent: 11 May 2020 15:49
To: talk-gb 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - 
legal vs reality)

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 14:12, nathan case  wrote:
> Thanks Tony and Adam for your responses. It is good to know that LCC have 
> released the parish IDs in the data as well. Makes a lookup table easy to 
> produce.
>
> It still remains that if I were a casual mapper and wanted to add an unmapped 
> path to OSM, the primary source for the prow_ref is the council’s map.

Unless you've been given permission by the copyright holder to make use of a 
map like that, then it's off-limits for use in OSM. The map at 
https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/
is currently not working for me, but is does say "(c) Crown copyright and 
database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023320" below it. It's likely that it 
was showing lines for Rights of Way on top of an Ordnance Survey base map -- in 
which case it certainly couldn't be used for OSM mapping. You might be able to 
get permission to use the overlay lines, but you'd have to detach them from the 
base map before using them. Otherwise you might be inferring location details 
from the OS base map. Ordnance Survey are quite strict on what they consider to 
be derived data from their maps, so OSM needs to be very careful around them.

What we do have permission to use in OSM is the raw GIS files from Lancashire. 
As already noted, these contain both the parish IDs and names. It's up to 
whoever renders them what to show as labels.
Hopefully we can agree on a prow_ref format here, and then any tool authors 
will follow that in what they display to mappers.

> It is then complicated that other sources use an mix of formats. (Even 
> for me, parish IDs are the most straightforward way of adding prow_ref 
> data to OSM.)

Both myself (who runs PRoW Comparison tools) and Nick (who runs MapThe
Paths) intend to ensure our tools show whatever prow_ref format is agreed. So 
that should be two common sources of data for mappers to use.

Best wishes,

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

[Talk-GB] PRoW archive

[BD]

Hello again,   I was looking at the discussion about PRoW and how to request 
the information from local council. I wonder if there is a comprehensive 
list/central location where we have stored information regarding which council 
has been approached and what was the answer (if any).   It would make sense to 
save time (ours and councils) by not duplicating requests for information which 
might be already released.   cheers,  Bart
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Long live OSM :)

[BD]

Hi all,   I see the OSM as a great project, with fabulous community and I trust 
that it will last.   In the past few weeks Ive created four or five 
photobooks (photo albums with printed pages) and included QR codes with OSM 
links to describe locations. I hope that the map will survive many years and in 
the future my family will be able to refer to those links and recall where 
weve been.   Long live OSM!   Cheers, Bart :)
___
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)

[Adam Snape]

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.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Mon, 11 May 2020, 15:50 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists), <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 14:12, nathan case  wrote:
> > Thanks Tony and Adam for your responses. It is good to know that LCC
> have released the parish IDs in the data as well. Makes a lookup table easy
> to produce.
> >
> > It still remains that if I were a casual mapper and wanted to add an
> unmapped path to OSM, the primary source for the prow_ref is the council’s
> map.
>
> Unless you've been given permission by the copyright holder to make
> use of a map like that, then it's off-limits for use in OSM. The map
> at
> https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/
> is currently not working for me, but is does say "(c) Crown copyright
> and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023320" below it. It's
> likely that it was showing lines for Rights of Way on top of an
> Ordnance Survey base map -- in which case it certainly couldn't be
> used for OSM mapping. You might be able to get permission to use the
> overlay lines, but you'd have to detach them from the base map before
> using them. Otherwise you might be inferring location details from the
> OS base map. Ordnance Survey are quite strict on what they consider to
> be derived data from their maps, so OSM needs to be very careful
> around them.
>
> What we do have permission to use in OSM is the raw GIS files from
> Lancashire. As already noted, these contain both the parish IDs and
> names. It's up to whoever renders them what to show as labels.
> Hopefully we can agree on a prow_ref format here, and then any tool
> authors will follow that in what they display to mappers.
>
> > It is then complicated that other sources use an mix of formats. (Even
> for me, parish IDs are the most straightforward way of adding prow_ref data
> to OSM.)
>
> Both myself (who runs PRoW Comparison tools) and Nick (who runs MapThe
> Paths) intend to ensure our tools show whatever prow_ref format is
> agreed. So that should be two common sources of data for mappers to
> use.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> 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] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 14:12, nathan case  wrote:
> Thanks Tony and Adam for your responses. It is good to know that LCC have 
> released the parish IDs in the data as well. Makes a lookup table easy to 
> produce.
>
> It still remains that if I were a casual mapper and wanted to add an unmapped 
> path to OSM, the primary source for the prow_ref is the council’s map.

Unless you've been given permission by the copyright holder to make
use of a map like that, then it's off-limits for use in OSM. The map
at 
https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/
is currently not working for me, but is does say "(c) Crown copyright
and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023320" below it. It's
likely that it was showing lines for Rights of Way on top of an
Ordnance Survey base map -- in which case it certainly couldn't be
used for OSM mapping. You might be able to get permission to use the
overlay lines, but you'd have to detach them from the base map before
using them. Otherwise you might be inferring location details from the
OS base map. Ordnance Survey are quite strict on what they consider to
be derived data from their maps, so OSM needs to be very careful
around them.

What we do have permission to use in OSM is the raw GIS files from
Lancashire. As already noted, these contain both the parish IDs and
names. It's up to whoever renders them what to show as labels.
Hopefully we can agree on a prow_ref format here, and then any tool
authors will follow that in what they display to mappers.

> It is then complicated that other sources use an mix of formats. (Even for 
> me, parish IDs are the most straightforward way of adding prow_ref data to 
> OSM.)

Both myself (who runs PRoW Comparison tools) and Nick (who runs MapThe
Paths) intend to ensure our tools show whatever prow_ref format is
agreed. So that should be two common sources of data for mappers to
use.

Best wishes,

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
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)

[nathan case]

Thanks Tony and Adam for your responses. It is good to know that LCC have 
released the parish IDs in the data as well. Makes a lookup table easy to 
produce.

It still remains that if I were a casual mapper and wanted to add an unmapped 
path to OSM, the primary source for the prow_ref is the council’s map. That map 
uses parish ID not parish name (i.e. it shows Label2). It is then complicated 
that other sources use an mix of formats. (Even for me, parish IDs are the most 
straightforward way of adding prow_ref data to OSM.)

So, as I said, my view is that Parish name and Parish ID should be both 
acceptable (though, of course, only one should be used per PROW). They serve 
the same function and can easily be crossed matched by third party services.


From: Tony OSM 
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:56 AM
To: nathan case ; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - 
legal vs reality)


Hi

The data file  sent by Lancs CC contained the District Number, Parish Number, 
Type, District Name, Parish Name plus coordinates list.

The first entry in the kml file is


33
120
16470.
Footpath
18.
yes
BURNLEY
HAPTON
12.
7.
FP 18
12-7-FP 18
http://lccmapzone/mapzone/asp/prow/general.aspx?path=FP18dis=12par=7
FP
120
768.56943096600

  -2.27639184743805,53.772975749866191 
-2.276419499154496,53.773014353403141 -2.276473919958041,53.773056738569473 
-2.276547825688409,53.773102501481461 -2.276629364748936,53.773140809891281 
...

The data does contain the relevant information in this case Hapton FP 18. Some 
people used the LABEL2 field 12-7-FP-18 which is easier to grab for display - 
but the point is that Lancs CC have provided both formats.

I have shared a list of District & Parish names and numbers.

Rob has an experimental map & tool of Lancashire showing the format of Parish 
Type Number - which I have found to be very useful recently in labelling PROW's 
in my district 9. (Didn't know that Judge Dredd came to Chorley!). I understand 
that Rob will make that experimental map widely available if people agree to 
the Lancashire format, as his tool also checks for well formed PROW refs, 
correct lengths, and completeness of implementation of the PROW set per parish.

We have the data from Lancs CC - we need to agree the best way to use it, and 
only the ref is stopping that.

Regards

Tony Shield

TonyS999


On 11/05/2020 09:07, nathan case wrote:
I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name).

At least in Lancashire’s case, I think the use of the numerical ID in place of 
the parish name should be acceptable. The numerical parish ID is what is used 
on the council’s own PROW map – as well as the open data they released (and 
thus the easiest to import into OSM). It would be unrealistic to expect mappers 
to then cross-check the parish ID with a name, especially since that data is 
not (as far as I’m aware) easily (openly?) available.

Of course, if third party sites want to then use lookup tables to convert 
parish ID into parish name, then that would be perfectly acceptable.

The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support.

Regards.


From: Tony OSM 
Sent: 10 May 2020 12:29
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: 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

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

[Adam Snape]

Sorry, crossposted with Tony there

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 11:01, Adam Snape  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I can confirm that the parish name data was in the council's original
> disclosure and is contained in the ESRI shapefile I passed to rowmaps. It's
> available under an open licence (OGL v3)
> https://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/LA/prows.zip . I think Barry at rowmaps
> then trimmed some of his data for teh maps that display on his own site so
> that each county follows a common format.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 09:08, nathan case  wrote:
>
>> I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name).
>>
>>
>>
>> At least in Lancashire’s case, I think the use of the numerical ID in
>> place of the parish name should be acceptable. The numerical parish ID is
>> what is used on the council’s own PROW map – as well as the open data they
>> released (and thus the easiest to import into OSM). It would be unrealistic
>> to expect mappers to then cross-check the parish ID with a name, especially
>> since that data is not (as far as I’m aware) easily (openly?) available.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course, if third party sites want to then use lookup tables to convert
>> parish ID into parish name, then that would be perfectly acceptable.
>>
>>
>>
>> The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Tony OSM 
>> *Sent:* 10 May 2020 12:29
>> *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>> *Subject:* 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 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)

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

I can confirm that the parish name data was in the council's original
disclosure and is contained in the ESRI shapefile I passed to rowmaps. It's
available under an open licence (OGL v3)
https://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/LA/prows.zip . I think Barry at rowmaps
then trimmed some of his data for teh maps that display on his own site so
that each county follows a common format.

Kind regards,

Adam


On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 09:08, nathan case  wrote:

> I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name).
>
>
>
> At least in Lancashire’s case, I think the use of the numerical ID in
> place of the parish name should be acceptable. The numerical parish ID is
> what is used on the council’s own PROW map – as well as the open data they
> released (and thus the easiest to import into OSM). It would be unrealistic
> to expect mappers to then cross-check the parish ID with a name, especially
> since that data is not (as far as I’m aware) easily (openly?) available.
>
>
>
> Of course, if third party sites want to then use lookup tables to convert
> parish ID into parish name, then that would be perfectly acceptable.
>
>
>
> The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support.
>
>
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Tony OSM 
> *Sent:* 10 May 2020 12:29
> *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* 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 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)

[Tony OSM]

Hi

The data file  sent by Lancs CC contained the District Number, Parish 
Number, Type, District Name, Parish Name plus coordinates list.


The first entry in the kml file is

    
        33
        120
        16470.
        Footpath
        18.
        yes
        BURNLEY
        HAPTON
        12.
        7.
        FP 18
        12-7-FP 18
        name="PROW_URL">http://lccmapzone/mapzone/asp/prow/general.aspx?path=FP18dis=12par=7

        FP
        120
        768.56943096600
    
-2.27639184743805,53.772975749866191 
-2.276419499154496,53.773014353403141 
-2.276473919958041,53.773056738569473 
-2.276547825688409,53.773102501481461 
-2.276629364748936,53.773140809891281 ...


The data does contain the relevant information in this case Hapton FP 
18. Some people used the LABEL2 field 12-7-FP-18 which is easier to grab 
for display - but the point is that Lancs CC have provided both formats.


I have shared a list of District & Parish names and numbers.

Rob has an experimental map & tool of Lancashire showing the format of 
Parish Type Number - which I have found to be very useful recently in 
labelling PROW's in my district 9. (Didn't know that Judge Dredd came to 
Chorley!). I understand that Rob will make that experimental map widely 
available if people agree to the Lancashire format, as his tool also 
checks for well formed PROW refs, correct lengths, and completeness of 
implementation of the PROW set per parish.


We have the data from Lancs CC - we need to agree the best way to use 
it, and only the ref is stopping that.


Regards

Tony Shield

TonyS999


On 11/05/2020 09:07, nathan case wrote:


I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name).

At least in Lancashire’s case, I think the use of the numerical ID in 
place of the parish name should be acceptable. The numerical parish ID 
is what is used on the council’s own PROW map – as well as the open 
data they released (and thus the easiest to import into OSM). It would 
be unrealistic to expect mappers to then cross-check the parish ID 
with a name, especially since that data is not (as far as I’m aware) 
easily (openly?) available.


Of course, if third party sites want to then use lookup tables to 
convert parish ID into parish name, then that would be perfectly 
acceptable.


The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support.

Regards.

*From:*Tony OSM 
*Sent:* 10 May 2020 12:29
*To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
*Subject:* 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

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

[nathan case]

I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name).

At least in Lancashire’s case, I think the use of the numerical ID in place of 
the parish name should be acceptable. The numerical parish ID is what is used 
on the council’s own PROW map – as well as the open data they released (and 
thus the easiest to import into OSM). It would be unrealistic to expect mappers 
to then cross-check the parish ID with a name, especially since that data is 
not (as far as I’m aware) easily (openly?) available.

Of course, if third party sites want to then use lookup tables to convert 
parish ID into parish name, then that would be perfectly acceptable.

The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support.

Regards.


From: Tony OSM 
Sent: 10 May 2020 12:29
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: 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