On 31 May 2012 18:03, Rob Nickerson <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
