Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)
Hi, I'm so glad the information is being used and progress is being made. However, I do have to agree with Rob about the Council's online map. Re:OS copyright they are really highly protective about what they perceive to be derived data. I think it would be difficult to add rights of way whilst consulting the Council's OS-based map, yet completely avoid using any geographic information in it at any point to clarify, adjust or update the routes or surrounding features. But, in any case, we definitely do not have the Council's permission to use the data in the online map, which does differ slightly from the dataset they supplied in response to my foi/ rpsi request in 2018. It may seem trivial but we need explicit permission when using data for OSM, so I really do suggest we avoid this source. Please keep up the good work though, Adam ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)
> Unless you've been given permission by the copyright holder to make use of a > map like that, then it's off-limits for use in OSM. The map at > https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/ is currently not working for me, but is does say "(c) Crown copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023320" below it. It's likely that it was showing lines for Rights of Way on top of an Ordnance Survey base map -- in which case it certainly couldn't be used for OSM mapping. You might be able to get permission to use the overlay lines, but you'd have to detach them from the base map before using them. Otherwise you might be inferring location details from the OS base map. Ordnance Survey are quite strict on what they consider to be derived data from their maps, so OSM needs to be very careful around them. Understood but surely it is acceptable to draw the line in OSM making use of one's own GPS, or from visibility in the satellite layer(s) or OS OpenData, and then use the Council's map to get the prow_ref? Ordnance Survey do not have copyright on the prow ref and the LCC have made their prow refs open access. Or are you saying because one has to cross reference one's own drawing with the OS map, that OS own the copyright on the Council's data? Seems an over stretch? I'm aware that this is somewhat diverging from the discussion. In the end, the council clearly doesn't seem to care - either approach is fine by them as they use both. We're the ones imposing a restriction on the data format for our own purposes. I will go with parish name, rather than ID if that's what's agreed, but unfortunately I cannot edit all the ones I have already added using the parish ID rather than name (happy for them to be auto edited using the lookup table Tony has shared). Cheers. -Original Message- From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) Sent: 11 May 2020 15:49 To: talk-gb Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality) On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 14:12, nathan case wrote: > Thanks Tony and Adam for your responses. It is good to know that LCC have > released the parish IDs in the data as well. Makes a lookup table easy to > produce. > > It still remains that if I were a casual mapper and wanted to add an unmapped > path to OSM, the primary source for the prow_ref is the council’s map. Unless you've been given permission by the copyright holder to make use of a map like that, then it's off-limits for use in OSM. The map at https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/ is currently not working for me, but is does say "(c) Crown copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023320" below it. It's likely that it was showing lines for Rights of Way on top of an Ordnance Survey base map -- in which case it certainly couldn't be used for OSM mapping. You might be able to get permission to use the overlay lines, but you'd have to detach them from the base map before using them. Otherwise you might be inferring location details from the OS base map. Ordnance Survey are quite strict on what they consider to be derived data from their maps, so OSM needs to be very careful around them. What we do have permission to use in OSM is the raw GIS files from Lancashire. As already noted, these contain both the parish IDs and names. It's up to whoever renders them what to show as labels. Hopefully we can agree on a prow_ref format here, and then any tool authors will follow that in what they display to mappers. > It is then complicated that other sources use an mix of formats. (Even > for me, parish IDs are the most straightforward way of adding prow_ref > data to OSM.) Both myself (who runs PRoW Comparison tools) and Nick (who runs MapThe Paths) intend to ensure our tools show whatever prow_ref format is agreed. So that should be two common sources of data for mappers to use. 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] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)
Just wanted to add that in my view the other reason to list by parish name, type and number is that these directly relate to the legal record. Parish Footpath 11 has usually been Parish Footpath 11 since the 1950s and will continue to be so unless a formal legal process is followed to change something. The numeric references for districts and parishes exist only in an internal database of relatively recent creation. If 5 years down the line the council adopts a new system any numeric references in OSM would then be meaningless. Kind regards, Adam On Mon, 11 May 2020, 15:50 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists), < robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 14:12, nathan case wrote: > > Thanks Tony and Adam for your responses. It is good to know that LCC > have released the parish IDs in the data as well. Makes a lookup table easy > to produce. > > > > It still remains that if I were a casual mapper and wanted to add an > unmapped path to OSM, the primary source for the prow_ref is the council’s > map. > > Unless you've been given permission by the copyright holder to make > use of a map like that, then it's off-limits for use in OSM. The map > at > https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/ > is currently not working for me, but is does say "(c) Crown copyright > and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023320" below it. It's > likely that it was showing lines for Rights of Way on top of an > Ordnance Survey base map -- in which case it certainly couldn't be > used for OSM mapping. You might be able to get permission to use the > overlay lines, but you'd have to detach them from the base map before > using them. Otherwise you might be inferring location details from the > OS base map. Ordnance Survey are quite strict on what they consider to > be derived data from their maps, so OSM needs to be very careful > around them. > > What we do have permission to use in OSM is the raw GIS files from > Lancashire. As already noted, these contain both the parish IDs and > names. It's up to whoever renders them what to show as labels. > Hopefully we can agree on a prow_ref format here, and then any tool > authors will follow that in what they display to mappers. > > > It is then complicated that other sources use an mix of formats. (Even > for me, parish IDs are the most straightforward way of adding prow_ref data > to OSM.) > > Both myself (who runs PRoW Comparison tools) and Nick (who runs MapThe > Paths) intend to ensure our tools show whatever prow_ref format is > agreed. So that should be two common sources of data for mappers to > use. > > 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] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)
On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 14:12, nathan case wrote: > Thanks Tony and Adam for your responses. It is good to know that LCC have > released the parish IDs in the data as well. Makes a lookup table easy to > produce. > > It still remains that if I were a casual mapper and wanted to add an unmapped > path to OSM, the primary source for the prow_ref is the council’s map. Unless you've been given permission by the copyright holder to make use of a map like that, then it's off-limits for use in OSM. The map at https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/ is currently not working for me, but is does say "(c) Crown copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023320" below it. It's likely that it was showing lines for Rights of Way on top of an Ordnance Survey base map -- in which case it certainly couldn't be used for OSM mapping. You might be able to get permission to use the overlay lines, but you'd have to detach them from the base map before using them. Otherwise you might be inferring location details from the OS base map. Ordnance Survey are quite strict on what they consider to be derived data from their maps, so OSM needs to be very careful around them. What we do have permission to use in OSM is the raw GIS files from Lancashire. As already noted, these contain both the parish IDs and names. It's up to whoever renders them what to show as labels. Hopefully we can agree on a prow_ref format here, and then any tool authors will follow that in what they display to mappers. > It is then complicated that other sources use an mix of formats. (Even for > me, parish IDs are the most straightforward way of adding prow_ref data to > OSM.) Both myself (who runs PRoW Comparison tools) and Nick (who runs MapThe Paths) intend to ensure our tools show whatever prow_ref format is agreed. So that should be two common sources of data for mappers to use. Best wishes, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)
Thanks Tony and Adam for your responses. It is good to know that LCC have released the parish IDs in the data as well. Makes a lookup table easy to produce. It still remains that if I were a casual mapper and wanted to add an unmapped path to OSM, the primary source for the prow_ref is the council’s map. That map uses parish ID not parish name (i.e. it shows Label2). It is then complicated that other sources use an mix of formats. (Even for me, parish IDs are the most straightforward way of adding prow_ref data to OSM.) So, as I said, my view is that Parish name and Parish ID should be both acceptable (though, of course, only one should be used per PROW). They serve the same function and can easily be crossed matched by third party services. From: Tony OSM Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:56 AM To: nathan case ; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality) Hi The data file sent by Lancs CC contained the District Number, Parish Number, Type, District Name, Parish Name plus coordinates list. The first entry in the kml file is 33 120 16470. Footpath 18. yes BURNLEY HAPTON 12. 7. FP 18 12-7-FP 18 http://lccmapzone/mapzone/asp/prow/general.aspx?path=FP18dis=12par=7 FP 120 768.56943096600 -2.27639184743805,53.772975749866191 -2.276419499154496,53.773014353403141 -2.276473919958041,53.773056738569473 -2.276547825688409,53.773102501481461 -2.276629364748936,53.773140809891281 ... The data does contain the relevant information in this case Hapton FP 18. Some people used the LABEL2 field 12-7-FP-18 which is easier to grab for display - but the point is that Lancs CC have provided both formats. I have shared a list of District & Parish names and numbers. Rob has an experimental map & tool of Lancashire showing the format of Parish Type Number - which I have found to be very useful recently in labelling PROW's in my district 9. (Didn't know that Judge Dredd came to Chorley!). I understand that Rob will make that experimental map widely available if people agree to the Lancashire format, as his tool also checks for well formed PROW refs, correct lengths, and completeness of implementation of the PROW set per parish. We have the data from Lancs CC - we need to agree the best way to use it, and only the ref is stopping that. Regards Tony Shield TonyS999 On 11/05/2020 09:07, nathan case wrote: I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name). At least in Lancashire’s case, I think the use of the numerical ID in place of the parish name should be acceptable. The numerical parish ID is what is used on the council’s own PROW map – as well as the open data they released (and thus the easiest to import into OSM). It would be unrealistic to expect mappers to then cross-check the parish ID with a name, especially since that data is not (as far as I’m aware) easily (openly?) available. Of course, if third party sites want to then use lookup tables to convert parish ID into parish name, then that would be perfectly acceptable. The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support. Regards. From: Tony OSM <mailto:tonyo...@gmail.com> Sent: 10 May 2020 12:29 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality) I agree with Adam. In the published path orders fixed to lamposts etc the written description includes parish, type, number. Sometimes in that order sometimes type, number, parish. There is no consistency. Parish, type, number is likely to be understood by every user of OSM and I have used it in communication with Lancs CC who appear to understand it. Regards TonyS999 On 10/05/2020 12:03, Adam Snape wrote: Hi, There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I agree with Rob's preference for parish, type, number as it is more idiomatic and reflects how the routes are most commonly actually referred to in communication. As Rob noted, the council doesn't use the numeric references with any consistency even within its own electronic systems (with the format on the online map being at variance with the underlying dataset). I can confirm that neither the definitive maps nor statements for Lancashire use any such references. Kind regards, Adam ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)
Sorry, crossposted with Tony there On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 11:01, Adam Snape wrote: > Hi, > > I can confirm that the parish name data was in the council's original > disclosure and is contained in the ESRI shapefile I passed to rowmaps. It's > available under an open licence (OGL v3) > https://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/LA/prows.zip . I think Barry at rowmaps > then trimmed some of his data for teh maps that display on his own site so > that each county follows a common format. > > Kind regards, > > Adam > > > On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 09:08, nathan case wrote: > >> I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name). >> >> >> >> At least in Lancashire’s case, I think the use of the numerical ID in >> place of the parish name should be acceptable. The numerical parish ID is >> what is used on the council’s own PROW map – as well as the open data they >> released (and thus the easiest to import into OSM). It would be unrealistic >> to expect mappers to then cross-check the parish ID with a name, especially >> since that data is not (as far as I’m aware) easily (openly?) available. >> >> >> >> Of course, if third party sites want to then use lookup tables to convert >> parish ID into parish name, then that would be perfectly acceptable. >> >> >> >> The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support. >> >> >> >> Regards. >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Tony OSM >> *Sent:* 10 May 2020 12:29 >> *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org >> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights >> of Way - legal vs reality) >> >> >> >> I agree with Adam. In the published path orders fixed to lamposts etc the >> written description includes parish, type, number. Sometimes in that order >> sometimes type, number, parish. There is no consistency. >> >> Parish, type, number is likely to be understood by every user of OSM and >> I have used it in communication with Lancs CC who appear to understand it. >> >> Regards >> >> TonyS999 >> >> On 10/05/2020 12:03, Adam Snape wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I agree with >> Rob's preference for parish, type, number as it is more idiomatic and >> reflects how the routes are most commonly actually referred to in >> communication. As Rob noted, the council doesn't use the numeric references >> with any consistency even within its own electronic systems (with the >> format on the online map being at variance with the underlying dataset). I >> can confirm that neither the definitive maps nor statements for Lancashire >> use any such references. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> 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 >> > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)
Hi, I can confirm that the parish name data was in the council's original disclosure and is contained in the ESRI shapefile I passed to rowmaps. It's available under an open licence (OGL v3) https://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/LA/prows.zip . I think Barry at rowmaps then trimmed some of his data for teh maps that display on his own site so that each county follows a common format. Kind regards, Adam On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 09:08, nathan case wrote: > I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name). > > > > At least in Lancashire’s case, I think the use of the numerical ID in > place of the parish name should be acceptable. The numerical parish ID is > what is used on the council’s own PROW map – as well as the open data they > released (and thus the easiest to import into OSM). It would be unrealistic > to expect mappers to then cross-check the parish ID with a name, especially > since that data is not (as far as I’m aware) easily (openly?) available. > > > > Of course, if third party sites want to then use lookup tables to convert > parish ID into parish name, then that would be perfectly acceptable. > > > > The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support. > > > > Regards. > > > > > > *From:* Tony OSM > *Sent:* 10 May 2020 12:29 > *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights > of Way - legal vs reality) > > > > I agree with Adam. In the published path orders fixed to lamposts etc the > written description includes parish, type, number. Sometimes in that order > sometimes type, number, parish. There is no consistency. > > Parish, type, number is likely to be understood by every user of OSM and I > have used it in communication with Lancs CC who appear to understand it. > > Regards > > TonyS999 > > On 10/05/2020 12:03, Adam Snape wrote: > > Hi, > > > > There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I agree with > Rob's preference for parish, type, number as it is more idiomatic and > reflects how the routes are most commonly actually referred to in > communication. As Rob noted, the council doesn't use the numeric references > with any consistency even within its own electronic systems (with the > format on the online map being at variance with the underlying dataset). I > can confirm that neither the definitive maps nor statements for Lancashire > use any such references. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Adam > > > > ___ > > 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 > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)
Hi The data file sent by Lancs CC contained the District Number, Parish Number, Type, District Name, Parish Name plus coordinates list. The first entry in the kml file is 33 120 16470. Footpath 18. yes BURNLEY HAPTON 12. 7. FP 18 12-7-FP 18 name="PROW_URL">http://lccmapzone/mapzone/asp/prow/general.aspx?path=FP18dis=12par=7 FP 120 768.56943096600 -2.27639184743805,53.772975749866191 -2.276419499154496,53.773014353403141 -2.276473919958041,53.773056738569473 -2.276547825688409,53.773102501481461 -2.276629364748936,53.773140809891281 ... The data does contain the relevant information in this case Hapton FP 18. Some people used the LABEL2 field 12-7-FP-18 which is easier to grab for display - but the point is that Lancs CC have provided both formats. I have shared a list of District & Parish names and numbers. Rob has an experimental map & tool of Lancashire showing the format of Parish Type Number - which I have found to be very useful recently in labelling PROW's in my district 9. (Didn't know that Judge Dredd came to Chorley!). I understand that Rob will make that experimental map widely available if people agree to the Lancashire format, as his tool also checks for well formed PROW refs, correct lengths, and completeness of implementation of the PROW set per parish. We have the data from Lancs CC - we need to agree the best way to use it, and only the ref is stopping that. Regards Tony Shield TonyS999 On 11/05/2020 09:07, nathan case wrote: I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name). At least in Lancashire’s case, I think the use of the numerical ID in place of the parish name should be acceptable. The numerical parish ID is what is used on the council’s own PROW map – as well as the open data they released (and thus the easiest to import into OSM). It would be unrealistic to expect mappers to then cross-check the parish ID with a name, especially since that data is not (as far as I’m aware) easily (openly?) available. Of course, if third party sites want to then use lookup tables to convert parish ID into parish name, then that would be perfectly acceptable. The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support. Regards. *From:*Tony OSM *Sent:* 10 May 2020 12:29 *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality) I agree with Adam. In the published path orders fixed to lamposts etc the written description includes parish, type, number. Sometimes in that order sometimes type, number, parish. There is no consistency. Parish, type, number is likely to be understood by every user of OSM and I have used it in communication with Lancs CC who appear to understand it. Regards TonyS999 On 10/05/2020 12:03, Adam Snape wrote: Hi, There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I agree with Rob's preference for parish, type, number as it is more idiomatic and reflects how the routes are most commonly actually referred to in communication. As Rob noted, the council doesn't use the numeric references with any consistency even within its own electronic systems (with the format on the online map being at variance with the underlying dataset). I can confirm that neither the definitive maps nor statements for Lancashire use any such references. Kind regards, Adam ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)
I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name). At least in Lancashire’s case, I think the use of the numerical ID in place of the parish name should be acceptable. The numerical parish ID is what is used on the council’s own PROW map – as well as the open data they released (and thus the easiest to import into OSM). It would be unrealistic to expect mappers to then cross-check the parish ID with a name, especially since that data is not (as far as I’m aware) easily (openly?) available. Of course, if third party sites want to then use lookup tables to convert parish ID into parish name, then that would be perfectly acceptable. The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support. Regards. From: Tony OSM Sent: 10 May 2020 12:29 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality) I agree with Adam. In the published path orders fixed to lamposts etc the written description includes parish, type, number. Sometimes in that order sometimes type, number, parish. There is no consistency. Parish, type, number is likely to be understood by every user of OSM and I have used it in communication with Lancs CC who appear to understand it. Regards TonyS999 On 10/05/2020 12:03, Adam Snape wrote: Hi, There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I agree with Rob's preference for parish, type, number as it is more idiomatic and reflects how the routes are most commonly actually referred to in communication. As Rob noted, the council doesn't use the numeric references with any consistency even within its own electronic systems (with the format on the online map being at variance with the underlying dataset). I can confirm that neither the definitive maps nor statements for Lancashire use any such references. Kind regards, Adam ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)
I agree with Adam. In the published path orders fixed to lamposts etc the written description includes parish, type, number. Sometimes in that order sometimes type, number, parish. There is no consistency. Parish, type, number is likely to be understood by every user of OSM and I have used it in communication with Lancs CC who appear to understand it. Regards TonyS999 On 10/05/2020 12:03, Adam Snape wrote: Hi, There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I agree with Rob's preference for parish, type, number as it is more idiomatic and reflects how the routes are most commonly actually referred to in communication. As Rob noted, the council doesn't use the numeric references with any consistency even within its own electronic systems (with the format on the online map being at variance with the underlying dataset). I can confirm that neither the definitive maps nor statements for Lancashire use any such references. Kind regards, Adam ___ 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] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)
Hi, There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I agree with Rob's preference for parish, type, number as it is more idiomatic and reflects how the routes are most commonly actually referred to in communication. As Rob noted, the council doesn't use the numeric references with any consistency even within its own electronic systems (with the format on the online map being at variance with the underlying dataset). I can confirm that neither the definitive maps nor statements for Lancashire use any such references. Kind regards, Adam ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)
This may have got lost in the discussion about highway=no, but I'd like to get some feedback on what prow_ref format is best to use in Lancashire. See my previous message below: On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 19:23, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > The format of the Right of Way numbers seems to depend on what > map/data you look at. I think it would be highly desirable if we could > agree on a single format to use throughout the whole of Lancashire in > OpenStreetMap. > > I think the Lancashire online map at > https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/ > is a relatively recent innovation. (By the way, you shouldn't use that > map for OSM mapping, as there's an OS-copyrighted backdrop, which you > might inadvertently take information from, or use relative positioning > information from.) The Council's online map uses "1-2-FP 3", while > mapthepaths uses "1-2 3" (which comes from older GIS data Lancashire > released and was given to rowmaps.com). On my tool, I've currently > adopted the "[parish name] [type] [number]" format, which is the > default if I don't select anything else. > > So what to standardise on? The "1-2" part in the numbers above is a > parish code, which I think is probably an internal GIS thing within > the council, rather than what the official legal documents use to > refer to the paths. If you look at how they actually refer to the > paths, e.g. in the DMMO register at > http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/dmmoview/index.asp you'll see > they almost always refer to them by the parish name, type and number. > There's some discrepancy over whether a Public Footpath is PF or FP > (or occasionally PFP). But on the computer-generated order maps, it's > always FP, with BW used for Bridleway and BOAT for Byways Open to All > Traffic. I couldn't find a Restricted Byway on a map. The parish names > (rather than ID numbers) are also a lot easier for humans to deal with > when mapping. > > Based on the above, my preference would be to agree to use the > "[parish name] [type] [number]" format. But if it's decided to use > something else, I'll happily change my tool to whatever is decided. > (Although I can only set one format per county, so it will need to be > county-wide.) Hopefully Nick will be able / willing to do the same on > mapthepaths. (I've since been in touch with Nick, and he's keen to work together so we have use the same format for each county in our two tools.) Many thanks, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
