Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Andrew Hain 
You can add route relations for each number, that way you can search for the 
real prow_ref, not hidden between semicolons.

--
Andrew

From: Bob Hawkins <bobhawk...@waitrose.com>
Sent: 04 July 2017 12:05:25
To: Ed Loach; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

Ed
I must not have made clear the situation: the bridleway is coincident with the 
borders of two parishes, carrying a route code for each parish, not  a way 
crossing parish boundaries.
Bob


[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
  Virus-free. 
www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
On 4 July 2017 at 11:57, Bob Hawkins  wrote:
> I should be interested in further comments on prow_ref=Checkendon BR 28;Stoke 
> Row BR 15.

That's the standard way to have multiple values for a key in OSM, and
it is exactly what I use for dual-numbered PRoWs like that.

My Rights of Way progress tool at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ knows about this and will
interpret such prow_ref values correctly. It will also handle
multi-valued designation=* values, for the rare cases where you have
two different sorts of PRoWs on the same route, or (slightly more
commonly) where a PRoW runs along an Unclassified Highway. (The tool
is strict about not having a space after the semi-colon though.)

AFAIK, basic Overpass Turbo queries won't find values that are part of
a multi-valued tag, but you can do a regular-expression-based query to
get around this. For example:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/?w=%22prow_ref%22~%22(^|;)Adderbury+FP+1(;|$)%22+global
looks for "Adderbury FP 1" bounded by either semi-colons or the
start/end of the tag string.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread SK53 
I'd have thought this is because definitive maps were compiled at parish
level on paper and the identifiers created are based on those paper
documents not an IT system. Given that the definitive maps are just that,
any sensible digital record should take cognisance of the fact that the
same path may be on a parish boundary and therefore a path may have more
than one identifier.

As Andy (SomeoneElse) has said there are PRoW which are on the boundary of
two counties (The Drift or Sewstern Lane Lincs/Leics is one) so the
situation also arises across HAs where there would be no expectation of a
common reference system.

Jerry

On 4 July 2017 at 13:51, Dave F  wrote:

> Then even more reason to check.
> You'd have thought the organisation responsible would want unique keys to
> avoid confusion.
>
> DaveF
>
> On 04/07/2017 13:44, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
>> Parish councils don't have responsibility for the upkeep of rights of
>> way, that is the responsibility of the local highway authority (County
>> Council or Unitary Authority).
>>
>>
>>
>
> ___
> 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] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Dave F 

Then even more reason to check.
You'd have thought the organisation responsible would want unique keys 
to avoid confusion.


DaveF

On 04/07/2017 13:44, Philip Barnes wrote:

Parish councils don't have responsibility for the upkeep of rights of way, that 
is the responsibility of the local highway authority (County Council or Unitary 
Authority).





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Philip Barnes 


On 4 July 2017 13:30:09 BST, Dave F  wrote:
>I think it's worth contacting the PCs. It's unlikely they both want to 
>take responsibility for it's upkeep.

Parish councils don't have responsibility for the upkeep of rights of way, that 
is the responsibility of the local highway authority (County Council or Unitary 
Authority). 

Phil (trigpoint) 


>
>DaveF
>
>On 04/07/2017 12:05, Bob Hawkins wrote:
>> Ed
>> I must not have made clear the situation: the bridleway is coincident
>
>> with the borders of two parishes, carrying a route code for each 
>> parish, not  a way crossing parish boundaries.
>> Bob
>>
>>
>
>
>>  Virus-free. www.avast.com 
>>
>
>
>>
>>
>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Dave F 
I think it's worth contacting the PCs. It's unlikely they both want to 
take responsibility for it's upkeep.


DaveF

On 04/07/2017 12:05, Bob Hawkins wrote:

Ed
I must not have made clear the situation: the bridleway is coincident 
with the borders of two parishes, carrying a route code for each 
parish, not  a way crossing parish boundaries.

Bob

 
	Virus-free. www.avast.com 
 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>


___
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] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Bob Hawkins 
Adam
The parishes are mapped already.  I like your suggestion of adding a note in 
each set of tags, referencing the other prow_ref.
To all
I lack knowledge about these sorts of things: would a query, in Overpass Turbo, 
for example, recognise a single prow-ref’s two values that are separated by a 
semi-colon?
Bob

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Andy Townsend 

On 04/07/2017 12:05, Bob Hawkins wrote:

Ed
I must not have made clear the situation: the bridleway is coincident 
with the borders of two parishes, carrying a route code for each 
parish, not  a way crossing parish boundaries.

Bob
I can vaguely remember an example in Lincolnshire where the signed 
designation was different for a track on the county boundary (UCR and 
bridleway from memory) - I think I just picked one of the two. In your 
case a semicolon makes perfect sense to me.


Best Regards,

Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Adam Snape 
PS. Adding the parish boundary (if it hasn't been mapped already) and  a
map note would help somebody understand that the two values prow_ref values
were not an error

On 4 July 2017 at 12:27, Adam Snape  wrote:

> It's not too uncommon for the centre of a highway to form part of the
> parish boundary, with half falling in one parish and half in another. As
> long as we map highways as lines rather than areas, adding two values to
> the prow_ref tag as suggested seems the best solution where both halves are
> given separate reference nos.
>
> Adam
>
> On 4 July 2017 at 12:05, Bob Hawkins  wrote:
>
>> Ed
>> I must not have made clear the situation: the bridleway is coincident
>> with the borders of two parishes, carrying a route code for each parish,
>> not  a way crossing parish boundaries.
>> Bob
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>  Virus-free.
>> www.avast.com
>> 
>> <#m_641440796741299938_m_-4769683743138351438_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread SK53 
Totally frivolous suggestion (I think adding the prow_refs separated by a
semicolon is the sensible approach): use left_prow_ref & right_prow_ref!

Jerry

On 4 July 2017 at 12:27, Adam Snape  wrote:

> It's not too uncommon for the centre of a highway to form part of the
> parish boundary, with half falling in one parish and half in another. As
> long as we map highways as lines rather than areas, adding two values to
> the prow_ref tag as suggested seems the best solution where both halves are
> given separate reference nos.
>
> Adam
>
> On 4 July 2017 at 12:05, Bob Hawkins  wrote:
>
>> Ed
>> I must not have made clear the situation: the bridleway is coincident
>> with the borders of two parishes, carrying a route code for each parish,
>> not  a way crossing parish boundaries.
>> Bob
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>  Virus-free.
>> www.avast.com
>> 
>> <#m_-250973993155220739_m_-4769683743138351438_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Adam Snape 
It's not too uncommon for the centre of a highway to form part of the
parish boundary, with half falling in one parish and half in another. As
long as we map highways as lines rather than areas, adding two values to
the prow_ref tag as suggested seems the best solution where both halves are
given separate reference nos.

Adam

On 4 July 2017 at 12:05, Bob Hawkins  wrote:

> Ed
> I must not have made clear the situation: the bridleway is coincident with
> the borders of two parishes, carrying a route code for each parish, not  a
> way crossing parish boundaries.
> Bob
>
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
> <#m_-4769683743138351438_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> ___
> 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] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Bob Hawkins 
Ed
I must not have made clear the situation: the bridleway is coincident with the 
borders of two parishes, carrying a route code for each parish, not  a way 
crossing parish boundaries.
Bob


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Bob Hawkins 
David
I thank you for your reply.  I should be interested in further comments on 
prow_ref=Checkendon BR 28;Stoke Row BR 15.
Bob

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Ed Loach 
Split it at the parish boundary?

 

From: Bob Hawkins [mailto:bobhawk...@waitrose.com] 
Sent: 04 July 2017 10:15
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

 

I have discovered a situation in South Oxfordshire where a single bridleway has 
two route codes: 160/28/* and 368/15/*.  The Definitive Statement Remarks read, 
“Also numbered BR 15 in Stoke Row” for Checkendon parish and “Also numbered BR 
28 in Checkendon” for Stoke Row parish, which is borne out by the Oxfordshire 
Countryside Access Map.  Keys cannot be duplicated - prow_ref in this case - so 
I wonder what the solution might be?  I have in mind any Overpass Turbo or 
other queries that might be made, which will return one case only at the moment.

 


 
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
 

Virus-free.  
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
 www.avast.com 

 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread David Woolley 

On 04/07/17 10:15, Bob Hawkins wrote:

Keys cannot be duplicated


Keys can, however, have multiple values, using ";" as a delimiter. 
Whether data consumers would cope with this is an open question, but I 
can't seem them coping with alternatives any better.


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

[Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Bob Hawkins 
I have discovered a situation in South Oxfordshire where a single bridleway has 
two route codes: 160/28/* and 368/15/*.  The Definitive Statement Remarks read, 
“Also numbered BR 15 in Stoke Row” for Checkendon parish and “Also numbered BR 
28 in Checkendon” for Stoke Row parish, which is borne out by the Oxfordshire 
Countryside Access Map.  Keys cannot be duplicated - prow_ref in this case - so 
I wonder what the solution might be?  I have in mind any Overpass Turbo or 
other queries that might be made, which will return one case only at the moment.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb