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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
