Adam, thank you
Anderton and Adlington parishes are next to each other on the ground - a
good example of read across error which needs to be avoided.
Euxton Parish Council have published a recent LCC notice on their
website - http://www.euxtoncouncil.org.uk/news.php?id=83
which refers to PUBLIC FOOTPATHS EUXTON 37 & 38, CHORLEY BOROUGH .
Separately on Chorley Borough Council website, a modification order
https://democracy.chorley.gov.uk/ecSDDisplay.aspx?NAME=SD2280&ID=2280&RPID=6590173
refers
Add to the Definitive Statement for Croston the following:
Restricted Byway 26 from a junction with Back Drinkhouse Lane at SD 4853
1838running in an approximately easterly direction along an enclosed
track to pass through bollards at SD 4854 1838 and continuing to
terminate at SD 4859 1838 at a junctionwith Drinkhouse Road between
properties 17 and 19 Drinkhouse Road.
It seems clear that LCC have no formal nomenclature reference rules, so
the method described by you and your reasoning is that which we in
Lancashire should adopt.
I'd like to see the data supplied to you made more widely available -
as that public availability was part of my original question. I shall
send to Rob the data I extracted from the data supplied.
Regards
Tony
On 26/11/2019 21:12, Adam Snape wrote:
Hi,
Firstly, Tony, I think 9-4 is Anderton and 9-1 is Adlington.
As part of the original FOI/EIR/Re-use request for the GIS dataset, I
also requested (and was supplied) the council's scanned copies of the
Definitive Statements along with permission to use them under the OGL.
They appear to be complete as of when they were scanned (Early 2000s)
but don't include any subsequent modification orders (like many
councils Lancs don't frequently update the Map/Statement themselves,
the documents have to be read in conjunction with any relevant
modification orders).. If Tony or anyone else is interested in the
Statements I can send a download link. If anybody knows anywhere where
they could be hosted to be publicly accessible in the long term then
that would be great. With the statements the Council also supplied and
OGL licensed scans of the county's surviving original parish survey
cards which were used as part of the process for drawing up the draft
definitive maps/statements. The same applies to these (though beware
that these only cover a fraction of the County (the Rural Districts of
Lancaster, Fylde, Wigan, West Lancs and Chorley).
The paper Definitive Maps and Statements for Lancashire don't go as
far as naming the paths or supplying a definitive reference and as
Robert suspected I've not seen any pre-digitisation records which use
anything like 9-4-5. Parishes are not numbered on either the map or
Statement. Paths are numbered individually and colour coded by status
on the maps. The format varied over time but most of the statements
are tabulated by (named) parish with column headings 'path number',
'kind of path', 'position', 'length', 'any other particulars', there
is no section for path name or reference, though where the statement
for one path it refers to another path it is usually in the form of
parish, path type, path number.
Whilst there is a pretty much de facto standard when discussing rights
of way to use the format parish, path type (often abbreviated), path
no., I'm really not sure we need to be overly bothered about the
(perceived) formatting preference of each county (I've never heard of
a coucnil actually having a preference on path referencing format). In
this context differences in formatting don't change the meaning
'Rivington FP3' is synonymous with 'Rivington Footpath 3', is
synonymous with 'Public Footpath Number 3 in the Parish of Rivington'.
It is much more meaningful to have national consistency than to
slavishly following what we imagine to be the formatting preference of
each individual authority.
Kind regards,
Adam
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, 16:04 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists),
<[email protected]
<mailto:robert.whittaker%[email protected]>> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 14:32, Dave F via Talk-GB
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> On 26/11/2019 12:01, Tony OSM wrote:
> > to the preferred prow_ref format Adlington FP 5.
>
> As previous, this is not the preferred format. The format should
be as
> supplied by the LA, the organisation which has the *authority*
to name
> PROWs.
My reading of the original post is that Tony is saying that the
Council themselves are inconsistent in how they refer to their PRoWs.
In which case, I think we should use the format that is most prevalent
on the underlying legal documents (i.e. the Definitive Map and
Statement) rather than any electronic working datasets that are
produced from these. The onilne map at
https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/
uses the "9-5-FP 23" style numbers, but probably doesn't have any
legal force. I can't find any actual Definitive Statements online for
Lancashire, but there are what seem to be some Definitive Map extracts
in their DMMO register at
http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/dmmoview/ . These mostly look
to just use the "FP 34", "BW 45" numbers, without an explicit parish.
My guess would be that the parishes are named in the Definitive Map
and Statement, rather than using reference numbers (which are probably
an artefact of digitisation). So unless the council has officially
adopted the electronic version with the "9-5-FP 23" style numbers as
it's legal Definitive Map, we should be looking at accepting parish
names in the official reference numbers. The question then is how does
the council itself refer to the Rights of Way when using named
parishes rather than IDs. What is *their* preferred format?
If we can agree on the appropriate prow_ref format to use in OSM, then
I can load the GIS data into my tool at
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/ and have it display the refs in
the agreed format. Tony, if you've got a CSV file that converts
between the ID numbers and named districts/parishes that you could
send me, that would be really helpful, whichever format we end up
agreeing to use in OSM. It will also automatically produce a table
like https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/essex/parishes with the
parish names and numbers for anyone to reference.
Best wishes,
Robert.
--
Robert Whittaker
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
