Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way

2020-04-18 Thread Stephen Colebourne
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 at 09:02, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
 wrote:
> > Maybe we should develop some sort of (crowd-sourced?) service which looks 
> > up parishes based on parish codes to allow easy contribution of descriptive 
> > prow_refs?
>
> I've started an effort in that direction at
> https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/ref-formats/ .

FWIW, in Merton (London Borough) I'm using the format "Merton FP 86".
The numbering seems to be unique across the borough, not parish.

Stephen

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


Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way

2020-04-18 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 15:34, Nick Whitelegg
 wrote:
> I wasn't familiar with the situation in Dorset but MapThePaths uses the 'SE 
> 4/22' scheme (actually it appears as 'SE 4 22') so if people want to use MTP 
> as a source for prow_refs, then that would be the format to use.

In general, I think that tools (mine included) should follow agree
tagging, rather than the tagging following the tools.

> In terms of how I arrive at the references, I sourced the data from the 
> rowmaps site and applied a script which looked for a particular field (I 
> forget its name) in the rowmaps data. This is done consistently across all 
> counties.

Unfortunately, my experience of the rowmaps data itself is that it's
not really consistent in what it puts in its fields. (That's not
rowmap's fault though -- Barry is just using whatever formats arrive
in the data his tool consumes.

> I don't really mind too much what people use to be honest, obviously 
> something like 'Studland FP 1' or similar would be more descriptive, but 
> would require an extra step to look up the parish name.
>
> Maybe we should develop some sort of (crowd-sourced?) service which looks up 
> parishes based on parish codes to allow easy contribution of descriptive 
> prow_refs?

I've started an effort in that direction at
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/ref-formats/ . For each county in the
list there's a regular expression for parsing the prow_ref tag, and a
printf format for outputting a prow_ref tag from structured data. This
is then what my PRoW tool uses internally. I'm in the process of
adding the parish name/id lookup tables that I've collected to this
page. There's a JSON feed with the data to make it easier for others
to use it too.

> On the other hand some counties do not use parish refs at all in hhe number, 
> though they do mention them in the full ref (e.g. FERNHURST 1254). The 
> Chichester district of West Sussex (not OGL, by the way - unfortunately from 
> my POV as it's an area I'm interested in) appears to use a simple number for 
> all PROW refs, ranging from about 1-3500. This is not consistent in a given 
> parish, e.g. numbers between 1200-1299 appear to be spread between Fernhurst, 
> Lynchmere and Milland parishes.

Warwickshire is a bit like this too. It seems they numbered their
Rights of Way within each former district/borough. When this happens,
in my tool I treat these areas as "parishes". See e.g.
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/warks/north-warks/atherstone-rural-district/

Best wishes,

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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