On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:47:34 Steven Horner ste...@stevenhorner.com wrote:
I have followed the guidelines
at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines but
should I tag the footpath with the local authority reference which would aid
logging the path to the Council if
I agree that if there is a choice for prow_ref such as:
SimpleData name=CODE801FP1/SimpleData
SimpleData name=NUMBER1Abbots Bickington Footpath 1/SimpleData
then I would use the same as the councils interactive map. If this isn't
possible I would prefer written parish names rather than
to worry about
this, but wouldn’t this be an argument for prow_ref and prow_name? Or even
prow_ref and name?
** **
*From:* Rob Nickerson [mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* 04 January 2013 17:01
*To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
*Subject:* [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM
I've been looking at Durham records online (not available to download) they
are recorded like below:
Status: BW
Parish: Crook
Path Number: 37
Path Ref Number: 028037
The long reference number identifies the Parish (first part) and the path
number (last part) or I believe that's how it is
Barry Cornelius wrote:
Robert Whittaker wrote:
I wouldn't have thought that listing the authority would be
that useful -- you should be able to work that out from the
county that the way resides in.
My view is that it would be useful to include the id of the council
as I do not think
On 31 December 2012 16:38, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a few
hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of prow:ref,
I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the wiki) would have
-Original Message-
From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
[mailto:robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com]
Sent: 02 January 2013 11:23
To: talk-gb
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=
On 31 December 2012 16:38, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote
On 1 January 2013 16:30, Craig Loftus craiglof...@gmail.com wrote:
1/ prow:ref suggests some sort of name-spacing, but we haven't
actually developed any tagging scheme that makes use of a prow:*
name-space. So currently prow:ref would be the only tag used.
Is it wise to preclude adding more
Hello,
I have been adding to OSM for about 18 months but more active in recent
weeks. I have requested the PRoW from Durham County Council, they currently
have not released their data but do have it electronically, just
not publicly available to download yet. Their response was more postive
than
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012, Steven Horner wrote:
I have been adding to OSM for about 18 months but more active in recent
weeks. I have requested the PRoW from Durham County Council, they currently
have not released their data but do have it electronically, just
not publicly available to download yet.
Barry: I applied on Nov 28th but contacted the PRoW team who I have some
contact with, I received the below response on Dec 10th. It's good to read
they have made some progress and applied for an exemption. Do you have any
thoughts on how you would tag the paths if adding to OSM as I mentioned.
I
Steven Horner wrote:
I have added several footpaths locally but I am often left wondering
how to tag these or how to break them into sections. I have followed
the guidelines at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines but
should I tag the footpath with the local
Please be careful with the ™doesn't actually exist™ as the owner may not have
maintained the access point in the hope that people will stop using the path.
I've seen this on a number of occasions. I would investigate further and raise
it with the PRoWO. I believe there is a deadline coming up
David Groom wrote:
Last time this was discussed on the list I think we favoured prow:ref
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2012-June/013424.html
Yes - well remembered - there are indeed lots more of those:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=prow_ref
Cheers,
Andy
Andy raised several good points regarding tagging and references but not
sure I would agree about ignoring paths if not existing on the ground.
Officially if a path exists on the Definitive map then you have the right
to walk it, this is the information I was given by the PRoW team when I
became a
Thanks Andy that's what I was looking for. The job of adding footpaths,
bridleways and byways gets more complicated if we want it to be as accurate
as possible. The prow=ref obviously isn't needed but good to have if it's
known.
--
www.stevenhorner.com http://www.stevenhorner.com
@stevenhorner
Dudley Ibbett wrote:
Please be careful with the ™doesn't actually exist™ as the owner may
not have maintained the access point in the hope that people will stop
using the path. I've seen this on a number of occasions.
If there's something visible on the ground then I'd definitely map it,
Apologies that this was never added to the wiki page, but you are correct
we discussed prow:ref and prow_ref. I believe tag info suggests we are
converging more on prow_ref=* so will update the wiki to reflect this.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_access_provisions#Public_Rights_of_Way
After 2026 a public right of way will only exist if it appears on the Local
Authorities Definitive Map. This means that irrespective of what is on
the ground, the legal right of way is that shown on the legal Definitive
Map.
What does this mean for OSM:
* As noted designation=public_footpath is
Arg! We were converging on prow_ref when I last looked at tag info a few
months back. Perhaps I should have checked before changing the wiki!!
Seeing that I have now updated the wiki (and it really doesn't make a shred
of difference) does anyone have an issue if I change the existing
prow:ref s
- Original Message -
From: Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=
Arg! We were converging on prow_ref when I last looked at tag info a few
months
On 31 December 2012 16:38, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a few
hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of prow:ref,
I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the wiki) would have
22 matches
Mail list logo
