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
<ExtendedData><SchemaData schemaUrl="#PROW_Shapefile">
<SimpleData name="OBJECTID_1">33</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="OBJECTID_2">120</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="OBJECTID">16470.00000000</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="PATH_TYPE">Footpath</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="PATH_NUMBE">18.00000000</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="CORE">yes</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="DISTRICT">BURNLEY</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="PARISH">HAPTON</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="DIST_NO">12.00000000</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="PARISH_NO">7.00000000</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="PATH_LABEL">FP 18</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="LABEL2">12-7-FP 18</SimpleData>
<SimpleData
name="PROW_URL">http://lccmapzone/mapzone/asp/prow/general.aspx?path=FP18&dis=12&par=7</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="IMS_SYMBOL">FP</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="SHAPE_FID">120</SimpleData>
<SimpleData name="SHAPE_LEN">768.56943096600</SimpleData>
</SchemaData></ExtendedData>
<LineString><coordinates>-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 <[email protected]>
*Sent:* 10 May 2020 12:29
*To:* [email protected]
*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
[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
