Sorry, crossposted with Tony there On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 11:01, Adam Snape <adam.c.sn...@gmail.com> 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 <nathanc...@outlook.com> 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 <tonyo...@gmail.com> >> *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
