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