Its quite possible that this just cannot be done. I believe Leicestershire, and consequently Rutland as well, does not use any reference to tehe parish in the identifiers used in official documents. Instead all paths consist if a letter followed by a number. I once tried to extract parishes from this but I dont think the identifiers colocate with parish boundaries. Phil Barnes will know more.
On the whole I also prefer the use of names in identifiers stored on OSM. I suspect some of the completely numeric ones represent system specific keys. Jerry On Mon, 11 May 2020, 20:48 Mike Baggaley, <[email protected]> wrote: > In my view we need to be putting out a consistent UK wide message > (preferably parish name, type and number) and not confusing potential > mappers by having different formats in different counties. We have enough > trouble already with path references variously being put in name, ref or > local_ref instead of prow_ref, so need a simple unambiguous standard. > > Regards, > Mike > > >Just wanted to add that in my view the other reason to list by parish > name, > >type and number is that these directly relate to the legal record. Parish > >Footpath 11 has usually been Parish Footpath 11 since the 1950s and will > >continue to be so unless a formal legal process is followed to change > >something. The numeric references for districts and parishes exist only in > >an internal database of relatively recent creation. If 5 years down the > >line the council adopts a new system any numeric references in OSM would > >then be meaningless. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
