[Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road
Hi All, I agree that prow:ref would work well (although I guess there is a risk that the 'p' might get missed sometimes). If you are looking for another suggestion how about designation:ref as the ref is directly related to the designation=row type? This suggestion was inspired by the current discussions on the tagging mailing list - i.e. 'hgv is a shortcut for access:hgv' In regards to the reference value itself: I have also seen councils using number.link number after the parish name. Regards, RobJN ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road
- Original Message - From: Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com To: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:11 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road On 19 June 2012 14:07, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: David Groom wrote: However at the north end there is a (newly erected) public footpath sign showing a footpath ref of B64, pointing straight down this road, and the definitive map shows this as a footpath. I use admin:ref for refs that are predominantly intended for administrative usage, rather than public-facing usage. Now that sounds like tagging for the renderer. The problem in the stated case, is that there is potentially a footpath ref and a road ref. I would want to suggest something like footpath:ref=B64 or prow:ref=B64, but I don't think either is used or documented anywhere. Thanks everyone for the comments I like the idea of prow:ref. I think footpath:ref a bit too specific, we'd then need bridleway:ref, not to mention boat:ref (for byways open to all traffic) which could be just TOO confusing! I've also found one instance of where the problem mentioned by Andy, of a way needing both a road ref and a prow ref, see http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28919456 which currently is tagged ref = A49;Cuddington FP 24 Certainly here on the Isle of Wight, I think the use of the reference number has gone beyond just administrative purposes. A large majority of the footpath/bridleway signs have the ref on them (and I think all the more recent ones do). Walking guides and trail leaflets commonly refer to paths by using their reference number. In the UK at present there seem to be 7,004 ways tagged with designation =* and ref = *, of which 941 are on the Isle of Wight. I'd be quite confident about changing the relevant Isle Of Wight ways to prow:ref , but would not want to mass change all the UK ones. It would be good to hear comments from user mikh43, and Robert Whittaker, as the three of us account for 80% of the users who last edited those 7004 ways Regards David Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road
On 20 June 2012 12:44, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: I like the idea of prow:ref. I think footpath:ref a bit too specific, we'd then need bridleway:ref, not to mention boat:ref (for byways open to all traffic) which could be just TOO confusing! [snip] In the UK at present there seem to be 7,004 ways tagged with designation =* and ref = *, [snip] It would be good to hear comments from user mikh43, and Robert Whittaker, as the three of us account for 80% of the users who last edited those 7004 ways If we decide that we need to have a key other than ref for PRoW numbers, then prow:ref seems to me be the best option from anything that's I've seen suggested here. And I can't think of anything better myself. Given that there is a potential clash with road reference numbers (which rightly should take priority) and there are definitely cases where this arises, then perhaps it would indeed be better to use a different key for the footpath etc numbers. If we do make a decision to go with prow:ref, then I think we should try to bulk change the existing uses of ref for PRoW numbers. It would probably be relatively easy to semi-manually review all 7,000 uses of a ref value on a way with a designation. For example, we should be safe with any values that contain only letters and numbers (so is unlikely to be a combination of two different refs separated by ; or /) and ends in FP n, BR n, RB n or BY n where n is any number (so looks like a PRoW number). This will probably cover any that I've added, and I'd be happy for them to be changed automatically. If there were any other common formats, we could probably match them too, and then only have to manually review the much smaller number that's left. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road
Longwood Lane when driving a car along it looks pretty much like a normal highway, although it is rather narrow. It has an asphalt surface, and when turning in from the north, or south there is nothing to show there is anything special about this road at all from a vehicles point of view. However at the north end there is a (newly erected) public footpath sign showing a footpath ref of B64, pointing straight down this road, and the definitive map shows this as a footpath. Currently I've tagged this way as follows: highway = unclassified designation = public_footpath ref = B64 name = Longwood Lane The problem is that the map now displays the ref, as if it were a road ref, whilst no other footpath refs get shown http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.664715lon=-1.168427zoom=15layers=M . (see laso B33a and NC45a to the WNW of B64) Is this: a) Not a problem at all; b) simply a problem for the rendering, and no change to the tagging is required; c) a possible problem with the tagging? David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road
David Groom wrote: However at the north end there is a (newly erected) public footpath sign showing a footpath ref of B64, pointing straight down this road, and the definitive map shows this as a footpath. I use admin:ref for refs that are predominantly intended for administrative usage, rather than public-facing usage. (The obvious example of this in the UK is C roads.) That would seem to work here too: granted, the one you mention appears to be signposted but I presume that's more for fault-reporting purposes - dear County Council, the farmer has a bull roaming free in the field crossed by B64, that sort of thing - rather than actually expecting people to say oh, I went for a nice walk on B64 today. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Re-PRoW-Ref-codes-WAS-Hampshire-Rights-of-Way-Data-released-under-OS-OpenData-licence-tp5710929p5713398.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road
On 19 June 2012 14:07, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: David Groom wrote: However at the north end there is a (newly erected) public footpath sign showing a footpath ref of B64, pointing straight down this road, and the definitive map shows this as a footpath. I use admin:ref for refs that are predominantly intended for administrative usage, rather than public-facing usage. Now that sounds like tagging for the renderer. The problem in the stated case, is that there is potentially a footpath ref and a road ref. I would want to suggest something like footpath:ref=B64 or prow:ref=B64, but I don't think either is used or documented anywhere. -- Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road
Gregory wrote: On 19 June 2012 14:07, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: I use admin:ref for refs that are predominantly intended for administrative usage, rather than public-facing usage. Now that sounds like tagging for the renderer. How dare you! :p In road terms, there is a big difference between the C64 and the B2018. The former is of no use to man nor beast, unless man or beast happens to work for the County Council. Tell me, what would you think if your satnav suddenly told you at the next roundabout, take the [unsignposted] C64? cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road
On 19 June 2012 14:13, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Gregory wrote: On 19 June 2012 14:07, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: I use admin:ref for refs that are predominantly intended for administrative usage, rather than public-facing usage. Now that sounds like tagging for the renderer. How dare you! :p In road terms, there is a big difference between the C64 and the B2018. The former is of no use to man nor beast, unless man or beast happens to work for the County Council. Tell me, what would you think if your satnav suddenly told you at the next roundabout, take the [unsignposted] C64? I would think, wow OSM data is much more complete than TomTom. (and then I'd have to dangerously look at the screen to see which exit it was). But my GPS could be clever and not tell me unless it's a primary or secondary road. The Standard/Mapnik rendering shows the C-road ref in a different style, instead it could decide not to show those refs at all. I think they look a bit messy so I would agree with this style change. If man nor beast works at the County Council, who does(I often wonder this)? -- Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 14:33 +0100, Gregory wrote: On 19 June 2012 14:13, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Gregory wrote: On 19 June 2012 14:07, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: I use admin:ref for refs that are predominantly intended for administrative usage, rather than public-facing usage. Now that sounds like tagging for the renderer. How dare you! :p In road terms, there is a big difference between the C64 and the B2018. The former is of no use to man nor beast, unless man or beast happens to work for the County Council. Tell me, what would you think if your satnav suddenly told you at the next roundabout, take the [unsignposted] C64? I would think, wow OSM data is much more complete than TomTom. (and then I'd have to dangerously look at the screen to see which exit it was). But my GPS could be clever and not tell me unless it's a primary or secondary road. The Standard/Mapnik rendering shows the C-road ref in a different style, instead it could decide not to show those refs at all. I think they look a bit messy so I would agree with this style change. If man nor beast works at the County Council, who does(I often wonder this)? A neighbouring mapper to me does work for the Council, and his area is complete with C road numbers. Phil ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road
On 19 June 2012 12:59, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: a) Not a problem at all; b) simply a problem for the rendering, and no change to the tagging is required; c) a possible problem with the tagging? I'd say c). It seems to me like the road reference number (e.g. A514) and public right of way reference number (e.g. B442) are not mutually exclusive - i.e. a particular way could have both a road reference number and also a public right of way reference number. If we are using the same tag key (i.e. ref) for non-mutually exclusive tags, then that suggests to me there's a problem with the tagging. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road
On 19 June 2012 14:11, Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com wrote: I use admin:ref for refs that are predominantly intended for administrative usage, rather than public-facing usage. Now that sounds like tagging for the renderer. No, that's not true. Please see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer , especially: the tags being used are accurate and not misleading - that describes to me the use of admin:ref. If Richard was using, say, source:generator = B234, or landuse = B234 that would be deliberately tag[ging] incorrectly for the renderer. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
