Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref codes (WAS:Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence)
Is it not sensible to use the reference format of the place you are in,
rather than create some sudo standard?
If a footpath is in County Durham, and I see OSM has it as ref=Footpath
5, then I know I can call Durham council and say Repair footpath 5
please..
If another footpath is in Newcastle, and I see OSM has it as ref=NE/06-b,
then I can call that council and say Repair path NE slash 06 dash b,
please..
If I call Durham council and ask them to fix Footpath DH slash 5. they
will just be confused why I'm saying DH and slash.
Should there be a national referencing system introduced, or at least
planned and adopted by some areas, then we can think about using tags such
as *ref:uk*, *{name_of_standard}_ref*, or perhaps just *ref* and *old_ref* for
the number/format previously used in the area.
On 2 June 2012 11:35, Barry Cornelius barrycorneliu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
... (This is Worcestershire, and at the same time,
they've also split the paths up at every junction so that no path has
two routes leaving a junction, i.e. a path always ends at the first
junction of rights of way it comes to, and its continuation is now a
separate new path. I think this may have something to do with
geometries in GIS software.)
I think this is also adopted by Buckinghamshire. For example, there is a
four way junction where TWY/16/2, TWY/16/3, TWY/19/1 and TWY/19/2 meet.
Oxfordshire don't do this. One of their four way junctions has the meeting
of 265/29, 265/29, 265/33 and 265/33.
I'm not sure what's best to do for for an overall format. I think we
may probably have to consider things on a county by county basis,
trying to keep things as consistent as possible. ...
A web application I'm developing straddles many counties. So I've decided
to adopt the scheme:
code-for-council:code-for-**path-adopted-by-council
Examples are:
BM:TWY/16/2
BM:TWY/19/1
ON:265/29
ON:265/33
For the code-for-council (e.g., BM and ON), I've chosen to use the two
letter codes that are used by the OS Opendata 1:50 000 Scale Gazetteer that
is described at: http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.**uk/oswebsite/products/50k-
**gazetteer/index.htmlhttp://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/products/50k-gazetteer/index.html
It's in field 12 of their colon-separated file. There are 208 values.
Is this sensible?
--
Barry Cornelius
http://www.thehs2.com/
http://www.oxonpaths.com/
http://www.northeastraces.com/
http://www.barrycornelius.com/
__**_
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
--
Gregory
o...@livingwithdragons.com
http://www.livingwithdragons.com
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref codes (WAS:Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence)
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com wrote: Is it not sensible to use the reference format of the place you are in, rather than create some sudo standard? A web application I'm developing straddles many counties. So I've decided to adopt the scheme: code-for-council:code-for-path-adopted-by-council I think this is a way of doing what you suggest, i.e. using the reference format of the place you're in (along with the necessary indication of what place you are in). An alternative would be to use the council's own code, and then in another tag (or in a relation, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Is_In) indicating which county it is in. But that seems a roundabout way of doing it, harder both to use and to map. __John ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref codes (WAS:Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence)
On 08/06/2012 16:02, John Sturdy wrote: On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com wrote: Is it not sensible to use the reference format of the place you are in, rather than create some sudo standard? A web application I'm developing straddles many counties. So I've decided to adopt the scheme: code-for-council:code-for-path-adopted-by-council I think this is a way of doing what you suggest, i.e. using the reference format of the place you're in (along with the necessary indication of what place you are in). An alternative would be to use the council's own code, and then in another tag (or in a relation, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Is_In) indicating which county it is in. But that seems a roundabout way of doing it, harder both to use and to map. That is exactly what the concept of namespaces/value domains is designed to address. Counties won't check with each other about uniqueness of the value, so it's only guaranteed unique and unambiguous within the context of a certain county. Hence, the ref must be accompanied with an indication of which county generated the ref. So ref=organisation:num is one way, ref:organisation=num is another. Just think of what happens in the case of a new path: who or what generates its ref? It would be nothing short of best practice to include the organisation in the tagging. Just like the principle which says that amounts are never recorded in financial systems without a currency code and timestamps must always have a timezone - to avoid all possibility of ambiguity. Colin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref codes (WAS:Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence)
On Thu, 31 May 2012, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: ... (This is Worcestershire, and at the same time, they've also split the paths up at every junction so that no path has two routes leaving a junction, i.e. a path always ends at the first junction of rights of way it comes to, and its continuation is now a separate new path. I think this may have something to do with geometries in GIS software.) I think this is also adopted by Buckinghamshire. For example, there is a four way junction where TWY/16/2, TWY/16/3, TWY/19/1 and TWY/19/2 meet. Oxfordshire don't do this. One of their four way junctions has the meeting of 265/29, 265/29, 265/33 and 265/33. I'm not sure what's best to do for for an overall format. I think we may probably have to consider things on a county by county basis, trying to keep things as consistent as possible. ... A web application I'm developing straddles many counties. So I've decided to adopt the scheme: code-for-council:code-for-path-adopted-by-council Examples are: BM:TWY/16/2 BM:TWY/19/1 ON:265/29 ON:265/33 For the code-for-council (e.g., BM and ON), I've chosen to use the two letter codes that are used by the OS Opendata 1:50 000 Scale Gazetteer that is described at: http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/products/50k-gazetteer/index.html It's in field 12 of their colon-separated file. There are 208 values. Is this sensible? -- Barry Cornelius http://www.thehs2.com/ http://www.oxonpaths.com/ http://www.northeastraces.com/ http://www.barrycornelius.com/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref codes (WAS:Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence)
Fantastic news about Hamps PRoW data :-) Anyone else contacting their local council can use this as an example case. Q: Do we need to have a suggested way of tagging the reference numbers in ref=* ? So far I have seen the following in use: * Parish / path no. / link no.== For example: 417/26/1 (where the parish is a number code) * Area RoW_type Path_no.== For example: North Tawton Bridleway 18 Delimiters seen include ' ' , '/' and '-'. A: Can I throw out the suggestion that we use: * Parish-RoWType-PathNo-LinkNo. (where the bit in brackets is optional). I assume that use of '-' is allowed. Regards, RobJN ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref codes (WAS:Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence)
I guess the thing to do is just use the most common reference. I am aware of several schemes: Hampshire uses parish plus number e.g. Tichborne Footpath 5, West Sussex uses a county-wide, 3 or 4 digit number (e.g. 1263, 2005) and I've also seen XXX/YY (in Wrexham borough, Wales) and very large, 6-digit numbers (Cumbria). We should probably just make it free form rather than enforce a particular format. Nick -Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: - To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org From: Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com Date: 31/05/2012 06:04PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref codes (WAS:Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence) Fantastic news about Hamps PRoW data :-) Anyone else contacting their local council can use this as an example case. Q: Do we need to have a suggested way of tagging the reference numbers in ref=* ? So far I have seen the following in use: * Parish / path no. / link no. == For example: 417/26/1 (where the parish is a number code) * Area RoW_type Path_no. == For example: North Tawton Bridleway 18 Delimiters seen include ' ' , '/' and '-'. A: Can I throw out the suggestion that we use: * Parish-RoWType-PathNo-LinkNo. (where the bit in brackets is optional). I assume that use of '-' is allowed. Regards, RobJN ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref codes (WAS:Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence)
On 31 May 2012 18:03, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: Q: Do we need to have a suggested way of tagging the reference numbers in ref=* ? So far I have seen the following in use: * Parish / path no. / link no. == For example: 417/26/1 (where the parish is a number code) * Area RoW_type Path_no. == For example: North Tawton Bridleway 18 Delimiters seen include ' ' , '/' and '-'. A: Can I throw out the suggestion that we use: * Parish-RoWType-PathNo-LinkNo. (where the bit in brackets is optional). I assume that use of '-' is allowed. I think this is going to be complicated by the fact that different councils use different schemes for their numbering. I believe that the traditional method would be for paths to be numbered with a sequential number within each parish. The Definitive Statement forms often make use of the abbreviations FP, BR, RB and BY for the four classes of right of way, so I've been using the following format: ref = Parish Name Type Number where Parish Name is the name of the parish (which may itself contain spaces), Type is one of the strings FP, BR, RB and BY, and number is the path number (usually an integer, and without any leading zeros, and without any spaces). I've used spaces as separators, as it's the simplest option, and the one typically used on the definitive statements themselves. I don't see any reason to artificially introduce something different. Some councils seem to have adjusted their numbering schemes in recent years, possibly as part of the process of creating digital mapping. I've seen an example where the parishes are given a numerical ID, and where a council has given each path a new number that is unique within the whole county. (This is Worcestershire, and at the same time, they've also split the paths up at every junction so that no path has two routes leaving a junction, i.e. a path always ends at the first junction of rights of way it comes to, and its continuation is now a separate new path. I think this may have something to do with geometries in GIS software.) I'm not sure what's best to do for for an overall format. I think we may probably have to consider things on a county by county basis, trying to keep things as consistent as possible. I would have thought for those using a traditional numbering we could agree on a single format. I'm not so sure about new variants though. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
