Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Andrew Hain
You can add route relations for each number, that way you can search for the real prow_ref, not hidden between semicolons. -- Andrew From: Bob Hawkins Sent: 04 July 2017 12:05:25 To: Ed Loach; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re:

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
On 4 July 2017 at 11:57, Bob Hawkins wrote: > I should be interested in further comments on prow_ref=Checkendon BR 28;Stoke > Row BR 15. That's the standard way to have multiple values for a key in OSM, and it is exactly what I use for dual-numbered PRoWs like that. My

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread SK53
I'd have thought this is because definitive maps were compiled at parish level on paper and the identifiers created are based on those paper documents not an IT system. Given that the definitive maps are just that, any sensible digital record should take cognisance of the fact that the same path

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Dave F
Then even more reason to check. You'd have thought the organisation responsible would want unique keys to avoid confusion. DaveF On 04/07/2017 13:44, Philip Barnes wrote: Parish councils don't have responsibility for the upkeep of rights of way, that is the responsibility of the local

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Philip Barnes
On 4 July 2017 13:30:09 BST, Dave F wrote: >I think it's worth contacting the PCs. It's unlikely they both want to >take responsibility for it's upkeep. Parish councils don't have responsibility for the upkeep of rights of way, that is the responsibility of the

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Dave F
I think it's worth contacting the PCs. It's unlikely they both want to take responsibility for it's upkeep. DaveF On 04/07/2017 12:05, Bob Hawkins wrote: Ed I must not have made clear the situation: the bridleway is coincident with the borders of two parishes, carrying a route code for each

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Bob Hawkins
Adam The parishes are mapped already. I like your suggestion of adding a note in each set of tags, referencing the other prow_ref. To all I lack knowledge about these sorts of things: would a query, in Overpass Turbo, for example, recognise a single prow-ref’s two values that are separated by a

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Andy Townsend
On 04/07/2017 12:05, Bob Hawkins wrote: Ed I must not have made clear the situation: the bridleway is coincident with the borders of two parishes, carrying a route code for each parish, not a way crossing parish boundaries. Bob I can vaguely remember an example in Lincolnshire where the

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Adam Snape
PS. Adding the parish boundary (if it hasn't been mapped already) and a map note would help somebody understand that the two values prow_ref values were not an error On 4 July 2017 at 12:27, Adam Snape wrote: > It's not too uncommon for the centre of a highway to form

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread SK53
Totally frivolous suggestion (I think adding the prow_refs separated by a semicolon is the sensible approach): use left_prow_ref & right_prow_ref! Jerry On 4 July 2017 at 12:27, Adam Snape wrote: > It's not too uncommon for the centre of a highway to form part of the >

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Adam Snape
It's not too uncommon for the centre of a highway to form part of the parish boundary, with half falling in one parish and half in another. As long as we map highways as lines rather than areas, adding two values to the prow_ref tag as suggested seems the best solution where both halves are given

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Bob Hawkins
Ed I must not have made clear the situation: the bridleway is coincident with the borders of two parishes, carrying a route code for each parish, not a way crossing parish boundaries. Bob --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Bob Hawkins
David I thank you for your reply. I should be interested in further comments on prow_ref=Checkendon BR 28;Stoke Row BR 15. Bob --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ Talk-GB mailing

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Ed Loach
Split it at the parish boundary? From: Bob Hawkins [mailto:bobhawk...@waitrose.com] Sent: 04 July 2017 10:15 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way I have discovered a situation in South Oxfordshire where a single bridleway has two route codes:

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread David Woolley
On 04/07/17 10:15, Bob Hawkins wrote: Keys cannot be duplicated Keys can, however, have multiple values, using ";" as a delimiter. Whether data consumers would cope with this is an open question, but I can't seem them coping with alternatives any better.

[Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

2017-07-04 Thread Bob Hawkins
I have discovered a situation in South Oxfordshire where a single bridleway has two route codes: 160/28/* and 368/15/*. The Definitive Statement Remarks read, “Also numbered BR 15 in Stoke Row” for Checkendon parish and “Also numbered BR 28 in Checkendon” for Stoke Row parish, which is borne