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

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

2020-04-16 Thread Nick Whitelegg 
>Based on this, my preference would be to standardise on the "SE4/22"
>style format for the prow_ref in Dorset, and convert any other
>instances found to this. What does everyone else think? I'll invite
>Nick Whitelegg (who developed the "map the paths" site) and also a few
>mappers who've made significant contributions to Dorset PRoW's in OSM
>to this thread to get their input too.


Hello Robert,

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 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.

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?

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.

Nick





From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
Sent: 16 April 2020 14:18
To: talk-gb 
Subject: [Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way

I've recently been looking at increasing the coverage of my PRoW
comparison tool https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/ by adding new
counties. In particular, I've been looking at the data from Dorset.
I've hit a small issue though, in that the council uses two different
formats for their Right of Way Numbers. We really need to just select
one for the county in order to be consistent in OSM.

One format has a parish code followed by a slash and then the route
number within the parish (e.g. "SE4/22" for path number 22 in
Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle parish). The other would be to use the
full parish name, right of way type, and number. I asked their
Definitive Map officer about this and got the response:

"Both systems are used in parallel. For mapping (where the status and
parish are obvious) and for internal use, we use the numbering system,
but when reporting to Committee members or members of the public who
will not be familiar with the numbering system, we name the parish and
describe the status. Our sealed statements are listed by named parish,
status and route number. Our working statement spreadsheet uses parish
number, status and route number."

The "SE4/22" style numbers are what are used on Dorset Council's own
online map at 
https://www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/countryside-coast-parks/rights-of-way/rights-of-way-map-where-to-walk-ride-or-cycle.aspx
. Currently in OSM we have about 394km of routes in Dorset using this
style in the prow_ref tag, and another 98km using this style with a
space instead of the slash. That a total of around 492km based on the
parish codes and numbers. Conversely, there's only around 125km of
routes in Dorset that have a prow_ref tag that includes a parish name.

Based on this, my preference would be to standardise on the "SE4/22"
style format for the prow_ref in Dorset, and convert any other
instances found to this. What does everyone else think? I'll invite
Nick Whitelegg (who developed the "map the paths" site) and also a few
mappers who've made significant contributions to Dorset PRoW's in OSM
to this thread to get their input too.

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] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way

2020-04-16 Thread Tony OSM 

Hi Rob

There is a very similar state in Lancashire, I can imagine the 
Lancashire officer providing  a very similar response to that from Dorset.


Dorset are saying that their definitive statement is listed by named 
parish, status and route number.


I believe that as the public definitive reference is named parish, 
status and route number then that should be what is in OSM, using number 
references looks to me like an internal workaround for earlier computers 
and spreadsheets.


Using named parish, status and route number also makes it easier to use 
on maps - eg Andy Townsends 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=13=53.6423=-2.5975


Regards and mapsafe

Tony Shield

TonyS999

On 16/04/2020 14:18, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

I've recently been looking at increasing the coverage of my PRoW
comparison tool https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/ by adding new
counties. In particular, I've been looking at the data from Dorset.
I've hit a small issue though, in that the council uses two different
formats for their Right of Way Numbers. We really need to just select
one for the county in order to be consistent in OSM.

One format has a parish code followed by a slash and then the route
number within the parish (e.g. "SE4/22" for path number 22 in
Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle parish). The other would be to use the
full parish name, right of way type, and number. I asked their
Definitive Map officer about this and got the response:

"Both systems are used in parallel. For mapping (where the status and
parish are obvious) and for internal use, we use the numbering system,
but when reporting to Committee members or members of the public who
will not be familiar with the numbering system, we name the parish and
describe the status. Our sealed statements are listed by named parish,
status and route number. Our working statement spreadsheet uses parish
number, status and route number."

The "SE4/22" style numbers are what are used on Dorset Council's own
online map at 
https://www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/countryside-coast-parks/rights-of-way/rights-of-way-map-where-to-walk-ride-or-cycle.aspx
. Currently in OSM we have about 394km of routes in Dorset using this
style in the prow_ref tag, and another 98km using this style with a
space instead of the slash. That a total of around 492km based on the
parish codes and numbers. Conversely, there's only around 125km of
routes in Dorset that have a prow_ref tag that includes a parish name.

Based on this, my preference would be to standardise on the "SE4/22"
style format for the prow_ref in Dorset, and convert any other
instances found to this. What does everyone else think? I'll invite
Nick Whitelegg (who developed the "map the paths" site) and also a few
mappers who've made significant contributions to Dorset PRoW's in OSM
to this thread to get their input too.

Best wishes,
Robert.



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

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

2020-04-16 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
I've recently been looking at increasing the coverage of my PRoW
comparison tool https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/ by adding new
counties. In particular, I've been looking at the data from Dorset.
I've hit a small issue though, in that the council uses two different
formats for their Right of Way Numbers. We really need to just select
one for the county in order to be consistent in OSM.

One format has a parish code followed by a slash and then the route
number within the parish (e.g. "SE4/22" for path number 22 in
Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle parish). The other would be to use the
full parish name, right of way type, and number. I asked their
Definitive Map officer about this and got the response:

"Both systems are used in parallel. For mapping (where the status and
parish are obvious) and for internal use, we use the numbering system,
but when reporting to Committee members or members of the public who
will not be familiar with the numbering system, we name the parish and
describe the status. Our sealed statements are listed by named parish,
status and route number. Our working statement spreadsheet uses parish
number, status and route number."

The "SE4/22" style numbers are what are used on Dorset Council's own
online map at 
https://www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/countryside-coast-parks/rights-of-way/rights-of-way-map-where-to-walk-ride-or-cycle.aspx
. Currently in OSM we have about 394km of routes in Dorset using this
style in the prow_ref tag, and another 98km using this style with a
space instead of the slash. That a total of around 492km based on the
parish codes and numbers. Conversely, there's only around 125km of
routes in Dorset that have a prow_ref tag that includes a parish name.

Based on this, my preference would be to standardise on the "SE4/22"
style format for the prow_ref in Dorset, and convert any other
instances found to this. What does everyone else think? I'll invite
Nick Whitelegg (who developed the "map the paths" site) and also a few
mappers who've made significant contributions to Dorset PRoW's in OSM
to this thread to get their input too.

Best wishes,
Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

2017-11-07 Thread Philip Barnes 
On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 13:57 +, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> the RoW within that area.)
> 
> FYI: AFAIK, the value in rowmaps isn't supposed to be a ref for use
> in
> OSM, and has been deliberately standardised to suit the author's aims
> and database structure. The initial two characters are a code for the
> county, while the digit after the final slash is a segment number to
> distinguish GIS objects with identical other parts of the key. What's
> in the middle has been extracted from the council-supplied GIS file
> in
> some way. In terms of OSM's prow_ref key, I think the county-code and
> segment numbers should both be neglected. We don't add either to road
> reference numbers for example, despite the latter being likely to
> appear in GIS files.
> 
> 
Robert
Please do not ignore the segment numbers, these are in the ROW world
called links and certainly in the Shropshire case are taken directly
from the GIS data. They are not something made up by rowmaps. Each link
has a unique reference and when mapping I do split the paths at these
point. A link being when it intersects with a road or another right of
way. 

These are important when reporting path issues and whilst not essential
using them does save the overloaded rights of way teams time.

The parish code format is in my view preferable to the colloquial name
that is probably used on the definitive map, but that is something we
will only consult if there is a legal dispute. The GIS data is the day
to day data and is mostly correct. 

Most of us do not have the time to look at the definitive map during
working hours.

The colloquial name can easily be generated from the code, which also
gives far more information to those of us using it regularly.

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

2017-11-06 Thread Philip Barnes 


On 6 November 2017 13:45:15 GMT+00:00, Andy Townsend  wrote:
>On 06/11/2017 13:34, Philip Barnes wrote:
>> I don't believe that the type is needed as it can be derived from the
>
>> designation tag. 
>
>... provided that someone hasn't caused that to be lost somehow
>(perhaps 
>by merging ways by mistake).  :)
>
>Also there are examples of paths on the border between two areas that 
>had or have one designation in one authority and a different one in 
>another..

Lots of those, especially where they cross the border into Wales. 

Paths in Shropshire change reference when they cross a parish boundary and each 
link also has a unique reference. 

You can also derive the former district from the parish code too and it also 
avoids confusion where there are duplicate or similar names. 

Phil (trigpoint) 
>
>Best Regards,
>Andy
>
>
>___
>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] Prow_ref format

2017-11-06 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
On 6 November 2017 at 13:23, Mike Evans  wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 12:46:34 +
> Rob Nickerson  wrote:
>
>> Mike wrote:
>>
>> > A typical code is "PB|SP29|4/1"
>>
>> Be warned, this is not the format that Pembrokeshire use on the pdf scans
>> on their website. It seems to be GIS data only and may be a format Barry
>> made.
>
> Indeed so. ON the PDF it's referenced as  "SP29/4"

In this case I would go for prow_ref=SP29/4 as the Council appears to
have a clear and unambiguous reference format in use on its Definitive
Map. (My view might change if the Definitive Statement used some other
scheme, and then I'd have to decide between the two.) Since there's a
clear format I'd use that, and not artificially add parish names or
types to it. (My guess would be that the "SP29" is some sort of
area/parish/map sheet code, and the "4" is the traditional number of
the RoW within that area.)

FYI: AFAIK, the value in rowmaps isn't supposed to be a ref for use in
OSM, and has been deliberately standardised to suit the author's aims
and database structure. The initial two characters are a code for the
county, while the digit after the final slash is a segment number to
distinguish GIS objects with identical other parts of the key. What's
in the middle has been extracted from the council-supplied GIS file in
some way. In terms of OSM's prow_ref key, I think the county-code and
segment numbers should both be neglected. We don't add either to road
reference numbers for example, despite the latter being likely to
appear in GIS files.

Also, for Pembrokeshire, note that according to
http://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/PB/ , the GIS data was only released
under the "Ordnance Survey OpenData Licence", which isn't compatible
with use in OSM. I disagree with the subsequent statement there, which
implies that OS's statement automatically allows any OS-ODL licensed
data to now be used under the OGL. My view is that the actual rights
holders would have to re-license the data, as OS can't make that
decision for them. So IMO to use Pembrokeshire's data from rowmaps in
OSM, we'd need to get an additional permission/licence from
Pembrokeshire Council.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

2017-11-06 Thread Andy Townsend 

On 06/11/2017 13:34, Philip Barnes wrote:
I don't believe that the type is needed as it can be derived from the 
designation tag. 


... provided that someone hasn't caused that to be lost somehow (perhaps 
by merging ways by mistake).  :)


Also there are examples of paths on the border between two areas that 
had or have one designation in one authority and a different one in 
another..


Best Regards,
Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

2017-11-06 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
On 6 November 2017 at 11:13, Dave F  wrote:
> I'm unsure why or how often "altered reference format" happens, but would be
> a LA internal matter & irrelevant to OSM.

I haven't looked in detail at that many Authorities, but I would guess
that if you see a numeric parish code in the GIS data, then it's
likely to be an "altered reference format", as the legal documents
(written years ago, before computer systems) are unlikely to make use
of such numbers. (Unless of course an Authority has done a bulk
re-numbering of all their Rights of Way at some point.) My view is
that we should be basing our prow_ref on official the legal names from
the legal documents (The Definitive Map and Statement) and not an
internal code that's been assigned later by the Authority as a
database key in a non-Definitive database.

> We should be using the references
> provided to us under OGL even if "different LAs use different reference
> styles and with different degrees of consistency" or there's "obviously
> different de facto standard in use by an LA".

As I said before, I think it's important to note that the GIS data
provided by the authorities is generally not the official legal record
of their Public Rights of Way. So to determine the most appropriate
reference format to use in OSM, I think we should be looking instead
at the Definitive Map and Statement, and basing what we use on what's
in use there.

> OSM can't use any other format used by LA's if not issued under OGL.

I don't think that's strictly correct. We could use a different format
(on the grounds that the format itself isn't copyrightable), and it
would be ok to convert OGL-licensed refs/data to such a format
provided it could be done using only suitably-licensed data. In any
case, we often have the Definitive Statements under the OGL, in which
case, we could make use of whatever referencing system (typically
based on named parishes) is used there.

> OSM has to use a reference that relates to other databases. Concocting our
> own makes these paths impossible to be "uniformly interpreted and
> processed". AFAICS "Parish FP 12" isn't a "common standard"?

Apart from BOAT -> BY, it's exactly what Suffolk now uses in its
Definitive Statements, and also exactly what Norfolk uses in its GIS
data. (The Norfolk Definitive Statement isn't structured data, but
still uses the same elements for the identifier -- each parish is a
named heading, and then there's a sub-heading for each RoW of the form
"Footpath 12". So apart from abbreviating the type, it's basically the
same format.)

As different counties obviously do very different things, perhaps it
would be better to discuss some specifics. Is there a particular
county/authority where you think there's a better prow_ref format that
OSM should be using instead of what other mappers are using at the
moment?

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

2017-11-06 Thread Philip Barnes 
I don't believe that the type is needed as it can be derived from the 
designation tag. 

As a regular user of rights of way references to report problems to my local 
highway authority I can vouch that the parish code based GIS reference is far 
easier to use than the colloquial reference suggested by the wiki.

The wiki method also neglects the vital link number included in the GIS 
reference.

Phil (trigpoint) 

On 6 November 2017 12:46:34 GMT+00:00, Rob Nickerson 
 wrote:
>Mike wrote:
>
>> A typical code is "PB|SP29|4/1"
>
>Be warned, this is not the format that Pembrokeshire use on the pdf
>scans
>on their website. It seems to be GIS data only and may be a format
>Barry
>made.
>
>PB is "Pembrokeshire"!
>
>As Pembrokeshire don't use parish names I'd go for prow_ref="FP
>SP29/4/1"
>assuming this is a footpath.
>
>Thanks,
>Rob
>
>
>
>On 6 Nov 2017 12:30 p.m., "Rob Nickerson" 
>wrote:
>
>> Dave,
>>
>> I think the point was that nobody has a common format. Some LAs use a
>> different style when they refer to the same path in the definitive
>> statement when compared to the GIS data.
>>
>> Of course we can manipulate OGL data. That's included in the licence.
>If
>> we do change then it should be obvious to the LA what we mean if we
>speak
>> with them.
>>
>> I will be sticking with the wiki for any I map as this has been
>previously
>> discussed and has therefore grown traction according to taginfo.
>>
>> For Leicestershire it seems to be an obvious change: they don't
>include
>> Parish so just don't include it. So I'd map prow_ref="FP J16" as an
>example.
>>
>> P.s. I thought folks usually don't like to add third party database
>> references to OSM. Hence we came to an agreement of how prow_ref
>should be
>> *constructed* based on OGL data (not just a copy of one of the third
>party
>> attribute values).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rob
>>

-- 
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] Prow_ref format

2017-11-06 Thread Mike Evans 
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 12:46:34 +
Rob Nickerson  wrote:

> Mike wrote:
> 
> > A typical code is "PB|SP29|4/1"  
> 
> Be warned, this is not the format that Pembrokeshire use on the pdf scans
> on their website. It seems to be GIS data only and may be a format Barry
> made.

Indeed so. ON the PDF it's referenced as  "SP29/4"

> 
> PB is "Pembrokeshire"!
> 
> As Pembrokeshire don't use parish names I'd go for prow_ref="FP SP29/4/1"
> assuming this is a footpath.
The FP part seems redundant as it's already tagged as a footpath elsewhere 
however, "FP SP29/4" would be correct I guess.

Cheers
Mike 
> 
> Thanks,
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> On 6 Nov 2017 12:30 p.m., "Rob Nickerson"  wrote:
> 
> > Dave,
> >
> > I think the point was that nobody has a common format. Some LAs use a
> > different style when they refer to the same path in the definitive
> > statement when compared to the GIS data.
> >
> > Of course we can manipulate OGL data. That's included in the licence. If
> > we do change then it should be obvious to the LA what we mean if we speak
> > with them.
> >
> > I will be sticking with the wiki for any I map as this has been previously
> > discussed and has therefore grown traction according to taginfo.
> >
> > For Leicestershire it seems to be an obvious change: they don't include
> > Parish so just don't include it. So I'd map prow_ref="FP J16" as an example.
> >
> > P.s. I thought folks usually don't like to add third party database
> > references to OSM. Hence we came to an agreement of how prow_ref should be
> > *constructed* based on OGL data (not just a copy of one of the third party
> > attribute values).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rob
> >  


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

2017-11-06 Thread Rob Nickerson 
Mike wrote:

> A typical code is "PB|SP29|4/1"

Be warned, this is not the format that Pembrokeshire use on the pdf scans
on their website. It seems to be GIS data only and may be a format Barry
made.

PB is "Pembrokeshire"!

As Pembrokeshire don't use parish names I'd go for prow_ref="FP SP29/4/1"
assuming this is a footpath.

Thanks,
Rob



On 6 Nov 2017 12:30 p.m., "Rob Nickerson"  wrote:

> Dave,
>
> I think the point was that nobody has a common format. Some LAs use a
> different style when they refer to the same path in the definitive
> statement when compared to the GIS data.
>
> Of course we can manipulate OGL data. That's included in the licence. If
> we do change then it should be obvious to the LA what we mean if we speak
> with them.
>
> I will be sticking with the wiki for any I map as this has been previously
> discussed and has therefore grown traction according to taginfo.
>
> For Leicestershire it seems to be an obvious change: they don't include
> Parish so just don't include it. So I'd map prow_ref="FP J16" as an example.
>
> P.s. I thought folks usually don't like to add third party database
> references to OSM. Hence we came to an agreement of how prow_ref should be
> *constructed* based on OGL data (not just a copy of one of the third party
> attribute values).
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

2017-11-06 Thread Rob Nickerson 
Dave,

I think the point was that nobody has a common format. Some LAs use a
different style when they refer to the same path in the definitive
statement when compared to the GIS data.

Of course we can manipulate OGL data. That's included in the licence. If we
do change then it should be obvious to the LA what we mean if we speak with
them.

I will be sticking with the wiki for any I map as this has been previously
discussed and has therefore grown traction according to taginfo.

For Leicestershire it seems to be an obvious change: they don't include
Parish so just don't include it. So I'd map prow_ref="FP J16" as an example.

P.s. I thought folks usually don't like to add third party database
references to OSM. Hence we came to an agreement of how prow_ref should be
*constructed* based on OGL data (not just a copy of one of the third party
attribute values).

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

2017-11-06 Thread Mike Evans 
On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 11:51:48 +
Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On 6 November 2017 11:13:23 GMT+00:00, Dave F  
> wrote:
> >
> >On 05/11/2017 10:42, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:  
> >> On 4 November 2017 at 17:49, Dave F  
> >Are any LAs, that you've looked at, not including parish codes within 
> >their refs?  
> 
> Leicestershire don't use parish codes, they use a letter number format i.e. 
> J93. 
> 
SNIP


> 
> Phil (trigpoint) 

Pembrokeshire doesn't either. A typical code is "PB|SP29|4/1" No parish, just a 
code representing...something.

Mike Evans (lostmike)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

2017-11-06 Thread Dave F 


On 05/11/2017 12:42, Rob Nickerson wrote:

>I recommended BY for consistency with the other two-letter
>abbreviations (FP, BR, RB) that were more universal.

+1

Given that there is little internal consistency within each LA and 
that these are rarely even marked on the ground, my preference would 
be to stick with the standard as described on the wiki unless this 
does not fit with a LA.


"internal consistency within each LA" has no relevance to OSM. A 
'standard' isn't a standard if it *only* relates within OSM.




Finally, I understand that FP etc can be determined from the 
designation tag but I do not see this as a reason to omit the data. It 
is useful to the end user, just as the M in ref=M1 is for motorways!!


You miss the point. 'M1' *is* the ref issued by Highways England & is 
added to OSM as such. We should do the same for prow_refs as issued by 
LAs (even if they each have a different format).


What the wiki says is the equivalent of manipulating 'M1' so it reads 
something like 'Yorkshire/Rob/MW1'




So, in summary, can't we just stick to what we previously agreed

Has it been discussed anywhere other than the one in 2013?


and diverge only when this clearly doesn't work for a participial LA 
(or which I expect that to be very rare).


The wiki manipulation recommendation doesn't work for any LA (or indeed, 
anybody) as it's unique to OSM.


Cheers
DaveF

---
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

[Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

2017-11-05 Thread Rob Nickerson 
>I recommended BY for consistency with the other two-letter
>abbreviations (FP, BR, RB) that were more universal.

+1

Given that there is little internal consistency within each LA and that
these are rarely even marked on the ground, my preference would be to stick
with the standard as described on the wiki unless this does not fit with a
LA.

For Warwickshire CC I [1] came to a different prow_ref than Robert W [2].
Where Robert went with just SD91a, I opted for FP Combrook SD91a as that
fitted with the wiki standard.

Finally, I understand that FP etc can be determined from the designation
tag but I do not see this as a reason to omit the data. It is useful to the
end user, just as the M in ref=M1 is for motorways!!

So, in summary, can't we just stick to what we previously agreed and
diverge only when this clearly doesn't work for a participial LA (or which
I expect that to be very rare).

Thanks,
Rob

[1] https://www.loomio.org/d/jUifS6tM/prow-map
[2]
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/warks/stratford-on-avon/stratford-on-avon-rural-district/
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

2017-11-05 Thread Adam Snape 
Hi,

I agree with what Robert has said and think he has clarified many points
admirably. I think we need to be clear that in many cases what we will be
recording under prow_ref is a working reference used in the council's GIS
system, not part of the definitive official record of rights of way.

Colin asked about unparished areas. Where people refer to 'parishes' when
talking about the definitive maps they're usually talking about whatever
area was used to group the paths when the definitive maps were first drawn
up and paths numbered. In (then) parished areas this was usually the
parish, indeed parishes were individually responsible for drawing up the
draft maps and submitting them to the County Council. Paths in (then)
unparished areas were usually grouped by the relevant Urban District or
County Borough. With some exceptions these groupings usually remain to this
day. Even new paths added to the map  are usually grouped with these old
boundaries for consistency. Thus, the path recorded as Wiggington Bridleway
No. 7 might not fall in the current civil parish or unparished area of
Wiggington.

Regards,

Adam



On 4 Nov 2017 5:49 p.m., "Dave F"  wrote:

> Hi
>
> I've started adding Prow_ref=* to the paths within my Local Authority.
> I've been using the format as decided by them.
>
> I noticed another mapper has already added a few, but using the format by
> Barry Cornelius at rowmaps.com. I think this shouldn't be used as it's
> Barry's own concoction.
>
> As the LA is the organisation someone would most likely converse with
> about PROWs, it seemed sensible to use the format issued by them. It makes
> verification of any updates *much* easier.
>
> To check I looked at the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org
> /wiki/Key:prow_ref
>
> I wasn't really surprised to find another format recommended. A couple
> things appear wrong with this:
> * including the parish name in any format other than as issued by the LA
> will lead to confusion if their boundaries are amended
> * path abbreviations are unnecessary as their classifications are already
> defined in other OSM tags (highway & designation)
>
> Having a 'standard' within OSM seems counter productive as it would make
> it non-standard with the vast majority of LAs.
>
> Your thoughts?
>
> DaveF
>
> ---
> 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
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

2017-11-05 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
On 4 November 2017 at 17:49, Dave F  wrote:
> I've started adding Prow_ref=* to the paths within my Local Authority. I've
> been using the format as decided by them.
>
> I noticed another mapper has already added a few, but using the format by
> Barry Cornelius at rowmaps.com. I think this shouldn't be used as it's
> Barry's own concoction.
>
> As the LA is the organisation someone would most likely converse with about
> PROWs, it seemed sensible to use the format issued by them. It makes
> verification of any updates *much* easier.

I'd agree with that. However, one should be careful about drawing
conclusions about what the LA's official referencing system actually
is. The legal record of Rights of Way is held in the Definitive Map
and Statement, whereas we may well be using an electronic
representation of the definitive map for our mapping. In translating
the data to their computer systems, the LA may have altered the
reference format from that used on the Definitive Map. As others have
already noted, there are also inconsistencies in how an LA itself will
refer to their own paths.

> To check I looked at the wiki:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:prow_ref
>
> I wasn't really surprised to find another format recommended. A couple
> things appear wrong with this:
> * including the parish name in any format other than as issued by the LA
> will lead to confusion if their boundaries are amended
> * path abbreviations are unnecessary as their classifications are already
> defined in other OSM tags (highway & designation)
>
> Having a 'standard' within OSM seems counter productive as it would make it
> non-standard with the vast majority of LAs.

Through my work with my tool at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ it's obvious that
different LAs use different reference styles and with different
degrees of consistency. What is clear though is that in OSM we should
adopt a single format *within* each LA to ensure that our reference
values can be uniformly interpreted and processed. But I would agree
that we need to allow different formats to be used for different LAs.
The suggestion that you note in the wiki I think came from me, based
on an attempt to standardise the formats used by some of my local LAs
(Norfolk and Suffolk). Looking at the Definitive Map and Statements,
they weren't entirely consistent, but the suggestion of "Parish FP 12"
was the closest thing to a common standard I could see. IIRC, both BY
and BOAT were used interchangeably; I recommended BY for consistency
with the other two-letter abbreviations (FP, BR, RB) that were more
universal. The "Parish FP 12" suggestion was only intended for use
where there was not another obviously different de facto standard in
use by an LA. If that was the case, then I would expect the LA's own
format to take precedence.

Including the parish name is not redundant in numbering schemes where
numbers are only unique to a given parish. While the current parish
boundaries often align with the historic boundaries that were in
existence when the Rights of Way were recorded, some have changed over
time. LAs typically retain the original numbers and parishes when
boundaries change, but will often add any new paths with the correct
parish number. The result is that the parent parish cannot be
determined by geography (or the history of the geography) alone. A
"Footpath no 12" with the boundary of a particular current parish
might be numbered as part of that parish, or it might "belong" to a
neighbouring parish that included that land in years gone by. The
parish name is important, as it typically tells you in which file the
Definitive Statement for the route will be found.

Since I've added more counties to
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ I've added support for
(almost) arbitrary prow_ref formats, but each county needs to be
assigned exactly one. With the counties I've set up so far, it's
usually been obvious whether there's a different de facto standard
from the LA or not. But there were some edge cases, where I've perhaps
erred more towards my standard format that I should have done --
although some of that was based on existing use of formats in OSM. If
there are any disagreements with what I've gone with in my tool, then
please let me know.

Robert.

PS: I've just added Warwickshire Rights of Way to my tool at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/warks/ . The prow_ref
format used on their definitive map is XXnna where XX is a one or two
letter code for the historic borough/district, nn is a 1-3 digit
number, and a is an optional lower-case suffix. This is what my tool
will is currently detecingt for this county.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

2017-11-05 Thread Colin Smale 
On 2017-11-05 00:52, Dave F wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Comments inline.
> 
> On 04/11/2017 20:07, Adam Snape wrote: 
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I'm of the view that using a standard format would be rather unlikely to 
>> result in confusion in correspondence with the LA, but am equally happy with 
>> using the LA's version. Some thoughts:
>> 
>> 1.  We definitely shouldn't attempt to amend the definitive map 'parish' to 
>> correspond to modern civil parish boundaries. That could cause problems.
> 
> Could you clarify what you mean by "modern civil parish boundaries".

Or what you otherwise mean by "definitive map 'parish'". 

> 2. A standardized format could make it easier for data consumers to utilise 
> the tagged information.
> I believe all LAs (admin_level=6) and parishes (admin_level=10) have been 
> added so the 'standardised' as described on the wiki contains no unique data 
> that can't be retrieved from within osm.

The CP coverage is very good in the south and midlands but is largely
absent in the (far) north of England. I am working on it 

How do the LA's tag footpaths in unparished areas?___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

2017-11-04 Thread Dave F 

Hi

Comments inline.

On 04/11/2017 20:07, Adam Snape wrote:

Hi,

I'm of the view that using a standard format would be rather unlikely 
to result in confusion in correspondence with the LA, but am equally 
happy with using the LA's version. Some thoughts:


1.  We definitely shouldn't attempt to amend the definitive map 
'parish' to correspond to modern civil parish boundaries. That could 
cause problems.


Could you clarify what you mean by "modern civil parish boundaries".

2. A standardized format could make it easier for data consumers to 
utilise the tagged information.


I believe all LAs (admin_level=6) and parishes (admin_level=10) have 
been added so the 'standardised' as described on the wiki contains no 
unique data that can't be retrieved from within osm.


3. There often isn't consistency of formatting in official usage. What 
might appear on the definitive statement as 'Wiggington Bridleway 
No.7', might appear in orders as 'Bridleway number 7 in the Parish of 
Wiggington' and on the open data GIS files as 'Wiggington BW 7'


I see that as an internal LA problem & I'm not convinced adding another 
variation within OSM will help.

As long as the format issued under OGL is used, I don't see a problem.

4. A minority of authorities number different categories of RoW 
separately, so a parish may contain both a footpath 1 and a bridleway 
1. If we do standardize a format, including the category seems a good 
way of ensuring we don't end up with duplicate prow_refs in such parishes.


5. It would be preferable to use the established acronym BOAT for 
Byway Open to All Traffic, rather than BY as suggested in the Wiki


From my OP:
* path abbreviations are unnecessary as their classifications are 
already defined in other OSM tags (highway & designation)


--
We haven't unified other references countrywide; such as fhrs:ids & C 
roads, or internationally, such as Motorways/Autobahns.


Cheers
DaveF

---
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] Prow_ref format

2017-11-04 Thread Adam Snape 
Hi,

I'm of the view that using a standard format would be rather unlikely to
result in confusion in correspondence with the LA, but am equally happy
with using the LA's version. Some thoughts:

1.  We definitely shouldn't attempt to amend the definitive map 'parish' to
correspond to modern civil parish boundaries. That could cause problems.

2. A standardized format could make it easier for data consumers to utilise
the tagged information.

3. There often isn't consistency of formatting in official usage. What
might appear on the definitive statement as 'Wiggington Bridleway No.7',
might appear in orders as 'Bridleway number 7 in the Parish of Wiggington'
and on the open data GIS files as 'Wiggington BW 7'

4. A minority of authorities number different categories of RoW separately,
so a parish may contain both a footpath 1 and a bridleway 1. If we do
standardize a format, including the category seems a good way of ensuring
we don't end up with duplicate prow_refs in such parishes.

5. It would be preferable to use the established acronym BOAT for Byway
Open to All Traffic, rather than BY as suggested in the Wiki

Regards,

Adam


On 4 Nov 2017 5:49 p.m., "Dave F"  wrote:

Hi

I've started adding Prow_ref=* to the paths within my Local Authority. I've
been using the format as decided by them.

I noticed another mapper has already added a few, but using the format by
Barry Cornelius at rowmaps.com. I think this shouldn't be used as it's
Barry's own concoction.

As the LA is the organisation someone would most likely converse with about
PROWs, it seemed sensible to use the format issued by them. It makes
verification of any updates *much* easier.

To check I looked at the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org
/wiki/Key:prow_ref

I wasn't really surprised to find another format recommended. A couple
things appear wrong with this:
* including the parish name in any format other than as issued by the LA
will lead to confusion if their boundaries are amended
* path abbreviations are unnecessary as their classifications are already
defined in other OSM tags (highway & designation)

Having a 'standard' within OSM seems counter productive as it would make it
non-standard with the vast majority of LAs.

Your thoughts?

DaveF

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

[Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

2017-11-04 Thread Dave F 

Hi

I've started adding Prow_ref=* to the paths within my Local Authority. 
I've been using the format as decided by them.


I noticed another mapper has already added a few, but using the format 
by Barry Cornelius at rowmaps.com. I think this shouldn't be used as 
it's Barry's own concoction.


As the LA is the organisation someone would most likely converse with 
about PROWs, it seemed sensible to use the format issued by them. It 
makes verification of any updates *much* easier.


To check I looked at the wiki: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:prow_ref


I wasn't really surprised to find another format recommended. A couple 
things appear wrong with this:
* including the parish name in any format other than as issued by the LA 
will lead to confusion if their boundaries are amended
* path abbreviations are unnecessary as their classifications are 
already defined in other OSM tags (highway & designation)


Having a 'standard' within OSM seems counter productive as it would make 
it non-standard with the vast majority of LAs.


Your thoughts?

DaveF

---
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