On Thu, 31 May 2012, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
... (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 think this is also adopted by Buckinghamshire. For example, there is a
four way junction where TWY/16/2, TWY/16/3, TWY/19/1 and TWY/19/2 meet.
Oxfordshire don't do this. One of their four way junctions has the meeting
of 265/29, 265/29, 265/33 and 265/33.
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. ...
A web application I'm developing straddles many counties. So I've decided
to adopt the scheme:
code-for-council:code-for-path-adopted-by-council
Examples are:
BM:TWY/16/2
BM:TWY/19/1
ON:265/29
ON:265/33
For the code-for-council (e.g., BM and ON), I've chosen to use the two
letter codes that are used by the OS Opendata 1:50 000 Scale Gazetteer
that is described at:
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/products/50k-gazetteer/index.html
It's in field 12 of their colon-separated file. There are 208 values.
Is this sensible?
--
Barry Cornelius
http://www.thehs2.com/
http://www.oxonpaths.com/
http://www.northeastraces.com/
http://www.barrycornelius.com/
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
