On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 15:34, Nick Whitelegg <nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> wrote: > I wasn't familiar with the situation in Dorset but MapThePaths uses the 'SE > 4/22' scheme (actually it appears as 'SE 4 22') so if people want to use MTP > as a source for prow_refs, then that would be the format to use.
In general, I think that tools (mine included) should follow agree tagging, rather than the tagging following the tools. > In terms of how I arrive at the references, I sourced the data from the > rowmaps site and applied a script which looked for a particular field (I > forget its name) in the rowmaps data. This is done consistently across all > counties. Unfortunately, my experience of the rowmaps data itself is that it's not really consistent in what it puts in its fields. (That's not rowmap's fault though -- Barry is just using whatever formats arrive in the data his tool consumes. > I don't really mind too much what people use to be honest, obviously > something like 'Studland FP 1' or similar would be more descriptive, but > would require an extra step to look up the parish name. > > Maybe we should develop some sort of (crowd-sourced?) service which looks up > parishes based on parish codes to allow easy contribution of descriptive > prow_refs? I've started an effort in that direction at https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/ref-formats/ . For each county in the list there's a regular expression for parsing the prow_ref tag, and a printf format for outputting a prow_ref tag from structured data. This is then what my PRoW tool uses internally. I'm in the process of adding the parish name/id lookup tables that I've collected to this page. There's a JSON feed with the data to make it easier for others to use it too. > On the other hand some counties do not use parish refs at all in hhe number, > though they do mention them in the full ref (e.g. FERNHURST 1254). The > Chichester district of West Sussex (not OGL, by the way - unfortunately from > my POV as it's an area I'm interested in) appears to use a simple number for > all PROW refs, ranging from about 1-3500. This is not consistent in a given > parish, e.g. numbers between 1200-1299 appear to be spread between Fernhurst, > Lynchmere and Milland parishes. Warwickshire is a bit like this too. It seems they numbered their Rights of Way within each former district/borough. When this happens, in my tool I treat these areas as "parishes". See e.g. https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/warks/north-warks/atherstone-rural-district/ Best wishes, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
