Re: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

Rob Nickerson
Apologies that this was never added to the wiki page, but you are correct we discussed prow:ref and prow_ref. I believe tag info suggests we are converging more on prow_ref=* so will update the wiki to reflect this.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_access_provisions#Public_Rights_of_Way

Regards,
Rob

p.s. please use prow_ref for the public right of way reference number that the local council holds.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

Rob Nickerson
Arg! We were converging on "prow_ref" when I last looked at tag info a few months back. Perhaps I should have checked before changing the wiki!!

Seeing that I have now updated the wiki (and it really doesn't make a shred of difference) does anyone have an issue if I change the existing "prow:ref" s to "prow_ref" whilst we are still at low numbers of these tags?

Rob

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

David Groom


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Nickerson" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=


> Arg! We were converging on "prow_ref" when I last looked at tag info a few
> months back. Perhaps I should have checked before changing the wiki!!
>
> Seeing that I have now updated the wiki (and it really doesn't make a
> shred
> of difference) does anyone have an issue if I change the existing
> "prow:ref" s to "prow_ref" whilst we are still at low numbers of these
> tags?


Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a few
hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of prow:ref,
I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the wiki) would have
been the better option.

David
>
> Rob
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
On 31 December 2012 16:38, David Groom <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a few
> hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of prow:ref,
> I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the wiki) would have
> been the better option.

Setting aside the issues of popularity, my preference would be for
prow_ref rather than prow:ref for a few reasons:

1/ prow:ref suggests some sort of name-spacing, but we haven't
actually developed any tagging scheme that makes use of a prow:*
name-space. So currently prow:ref  would be the only tag used.

2/ "source:prow_ref" doesn't have the ambiguity / ugliness that
"source:prow:ref" has. (Ssince the reference numbers aren't often
recorded on the ground, it's probably useful to record the source.)

3/ prow_ref mirrors other ref types in use, such as bridge_ref,
route_ref, ncn_ref, and local_ref, which are generally used rather
than the alternative colon separated versions.

Robert.

--
Robert Whittaker

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fwd: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

Craig Loftus
I have been using prow:ref, just because I came across it in the mailing lists. I have not added many (~60 prows) and I don't mind converting those over to prow_ref if that is the consensus.

My preference would be for prow:ref, as the colon is the 'standard' way to define namespaces, and I am not convinced that prow_ref is not just a namespaced tag. It is using the "prow_" prefix to distinguish the prow object from the way object.

1/ prow:ref suggests some sort of name-spacing, but we haven't
> actually developed any tagging scheme that makes use of a prow:*
> name-space. So currently prow:ref  would be the only tag used.

Is it wise to preclude adding more tags to the namespace? As an example, one additional tag that occurs to me is "prow:operator" (or "prow:authority"), to describe the local authority the references 'belong' to.

> 2/ "source:prow_ref" doesn't have the ambiguity / ugliness that
> "source:prow:ref" has. (Ssince the reference numbers aren't often
> recorded on the ground, it's probably useful to record the source.)

I was just using source:ref, without really thinking about it. Taginfo has only 2 uses of source:prow:ref, which makes me feel better. There are examples of this pattern, in "source:hgv:national_network" (67 k) and  "source:addr:postcode" (17 k).

I agree source:prow:ref looks ugly, but I am not clear what is ambiguous about it?

3/ prow_ref mirrors other ref types in use, such as bridge_ref,
> route_ref, ncn_ref, and local_ref, which are generally used rather
> than the alternative colon separated versions.

This seems like an appeal to popularity; one could point to tree:ref or some other *:ref.

Craig


On 31 December 2012 22:27, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 31 December 2012 16:38, David Groom <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a few
> hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of prow:ref,
> I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the wiki) would have
> been the better option.

Setting aside the issues of popularity, my preference would be for
prow_ref rather than prow:ref for a few reasons:

1/ prow:ref suggests some sort of name-spacing, but we haven't
actually developed any tagging scheme that makes use of a prow:*
name-space. So currently prow:ref  would be the only tag used.

2/ "source:prow_ref" doesn't have the ambiguity / ugliness that
"source:prow:ref" has. (Ssince the reference numbers aren't often
recorded on the ground, it's probably useful to record the source.)

3/ prow_ref mirrors other ref types in use, such as bridge_ref,
route_ref, ncn_ref, and local_ref, which are generally used rather
than the alternative colon separated versions.

Robert.

--
Robert Whittaker

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
In reply to this post by Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
On 1 January 2013 16:30, Craig Loftus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 1/ prow:ref suggests some sort of name-spacing, but we haven't
>> actually developed any tagging scheme that makes use of a prow:*
>> name-space. So currently prow:ref  would be the only tag used.
>
> Is it wise to preclude adding more tags to the namespace? As an example, one
> additional tag that occurs to me is "prow:operator" (or "prow:authority"),
> to describe the local authority the references 'belong' to.

I wouldn't have thought that listing the authority would be that
useful -- you should be able to work that out from the county that the
way resides in. Apart from something like prow:type (for which we
already have the established designation=* tag) nothing else springs
to mind as being Rights of Way specific. If anything else is found, I
don't see a problem in having a later proposal to introduce a set of
prow:* tags and in the process change from prow_ref to prow:ref. So I
don't think it's necessary to use prow:ref "just in case" at this
stage.

> I agree source:prow:ref looks ugly, but I am not clear what is ambiguous
> about it?

Is it the source for prow:ref or is it a ref value somehow relating to
a source:prow namespace? Granted this particular tag is probably not
likely to be mis-interpreted, so this is only a very weak reason.
Ugliness was my main concern here. (The subtle issue is using using :
for both namespaces and recording sources, which have slightly
different semantics, but it's too late to do anything about this in
OSM now I fear.)

>> 3/ prow_ref mirrors other ref types in use, such as bridge_ref,
>> route_ref, ncn_ref, and local_ref, which are generally used rather
>> than the alternative colon separated versions.
>
> This seems like an appeal to popularity; one could point to tree:ref or some
> other *:ref.

There's a difference between appealing to popularity on a
non-established tag where numbers are likely to be decided by a small
number of mappers who happen to have chosen one over another for a
variety of reasons, some of which may just be copying any other
instance they found. As opposed to looking at well-established tags
(and patterns of tags) which are widely used and would now be very
difficult to change.

If you look at the numbers of uses in taginfo, you'll see that *_ref
is much more widely used than *:ref. For example, there are only four
*:ref keys with over 10k instances, and two of them are source:ref (or
a derivative thereof), which is arguably different. There are 15
different keys for *_ref with over 10k uses.

Anyway, that's more of an explanation of why I think prow_ref would be
preferable. If other uses are found for a prow namespace I might be
convinced to change my mind. We do need to settle on one tag to use
though, and I'll be happy to go with whatever consensus emerges. I'd
suggest we ask the others who have been making use of either prow_ref
or prow:ref (or even just ref=*, as I did originally) on Rights of Way
for their opinions and their reasons for choosing the one they did.

Robert.

--
Robert Whittaker

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
In reply to this post by David Groom
On 31 December 2012 16:38, David Groom <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a few
> hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of prow:ref,
> I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the wiki) would have
> been the better option.

Do you remember what figures were you looking at?

The taginfo data I'm looking at today at
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=prow_ref is dated as
"2013-01-02 00:58 UTC" and shows 670 uses of prow_ref, versus only 361
of prow:ref. Have things changed that much in a couple of days?

Robert.

PS: I've just converted a number of ref=* to prow_ref=* on Rights of
Way that I originally tagged with ref=*. But these changes were only
made today and so are not included in the above taginfo numbers. (I
figured that even if prow_ref isn't going to be the final name for the
key, this change will make is simpler to change to the final value at
a later date.)

--
Robert Whittaker

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

Gregory Williams-2
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
> [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: 02 January 2013 11:23
> To: talk-gb
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=
>
> On 31 December 2012 16:38, David Groom <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a
> > few hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of
> > prow:ref, I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the
> > wiki) would have been the better option.
>
> Do you remember what figures were you looking at?
>
> The taginfo data I'm looking at today at
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=prow_ref is dated as
> "2013-01-02 00:58 UTC" and shows 670 uses of prow_ref, versus only 361 of
> prow:ref. Have things changed that much in a couple of days?
>

Sorry that's probably mainly down to me, but I never got round to emailing
this list. After reading the email the other day pointing out that prow_ref
is more in keeping with things like old_ref and int_ref and that prow:ref
implied a prow namespace I was inclined to agree. As somebody that's put in
quite a few prow:ref tags I went and changed them to prow_ref, but got
interrupted before I could send a quick email to the list.

Gregory


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

Barry Cornelius
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:47:34 Steven Horner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I have followed the guidelines
> at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines but
> should I tag the footpath with the local authority reference which would aid
> logging the path to the Council if problems like FixMyPaths, if so how?

Although I cannot add anything useful to the discussion about prow:ref and
prow_ref, I do have some thoughts about the content of the tag.

Often the data a council provides about a PROW includes duplication.  For
example, often the parish is given as a nice friendly name and also as a
number.  Here's an example of the data given about a PROW that is provided
by Devon County Council (both council and PROW chosen at random):
    <SimpleData name="PARISH">Abbots Bickington</SimpleData>
    <SimpleData name="STATUS">Footpath</SimpleData>
    <SimpleData name="NUMBER">1</SimpleData>
    <SimpleData name="NUMBER0">0</SimpleData>
    <SimpleData name="CODE">801FP1</SimpleData>
    <SimpleData name="NUMBER1">Abbots Bickington Footpath 1</SimpleData>

So the id of the parish appears three times (twice as a name and once
as a number); the number of the path appears three times; and the fact that
it is a footpath appears three times.

For this, I guess you've got a choice betwen using the contents of CODE or
NUMBER1. I would recommend choosing whatever appears on the Council's
interactive map.  Devon County Council uses the contents of the NUMBER1
field, i.e.:
    Abbots Bickington Footpath 1

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 16:36:53 Craig Loftus <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Is it wise to preclude adding more tags to the namespace? As an example, one
> additional tag that occurs to me is "prow:operator" (or "prow:authority"), to
> describe the local authority the references 'belong' to.

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:35:31 Robert Whittaker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I wouldn't have thought that listing the authority would be that
> useful -- you should be able to work that out from the county that the
> way resides in.

My view is that it would be useful to include the id of the council as I
do not think it's obvious which authority is involved.  For example, the
data for Devon does not include Torbay.  And Bedfordshire is provided by
two councils: Bedford and Central Bedfordshire.  Gloucestershire is
provided by the councils of Gloucestershire and South Gloucestershire.

For my web site (www.rowmaps.com), I've chosen to use the two letter codes
that are used by the OS Opendata 1:50 000 Scale Gazetteer:
    http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/products/50k-gazetteer/index.html

The two letter code is in field 12 of their colon-separated file.  There
are 208 different values.  Fields 13 and 14 of that file also provide
short names and long names.

Here are some examples of fields 12, 13 and 14:
    BF:Beds:Bedford
    BK:C Beds:Central Bedfordshire
    DN:Devon:Devon
    DU:Durham:Durham
    GR:Glos:Gloucestershire
    SG:S Glos:South Gloucestershire
    TB:Torbay:Torbay

Either you bundle the id of the council in with the name of the PROW as
in:
    Devon Abbots Bickington Footpath 1

Or as suggested by Craig you could provide it in a separate tag - he was
suggesting "prow:operator" or "prow:authority".

All of the data for councils that I've seen specify the parish in which
the PROW appears.  So, really there are three separate pieces of
information:
    id of council
    id of parish
    id of PROW
e.g.,:
    Devon
    Abbots Bickington
    Footpath 1
or:
    DN
    801
    FP1

--
Barry Cornelius
http://www.northeastraces.com/
http://www.thehs2.com/
http://www.rowmaps.com/
http://www.oxonpaths.com/
http://www.barrycornelius.com/
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

Steven Horner
I've been looking at Durham records online (not available to download) they are recorded like below:

Status: BW
Parish: Crook
Path Number: 37
Path Ref Number: 0280000037

The long reference number identifies the Parish (first part) and the path number (last part) or I believe that's how it is made up from checking different areas.

If sticking with one PROW code then I guess either prow_ref or prow:ref. I used prow_ref.
If multiple codes are to be used then to my mind it would make sense to use.

prow:ref
prow:parish
prow:authority




On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Barry Cornelius <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:47:34 Steven Horner <[hidden email]> wrote:
I have followed the guidelines
at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines but
should I tag the footpath with the local authority reference which would aid
logging the path to the Council if problems like FixMyPaths, if so how?

Although I cannot add anything useful to the discussion about prow:ref and prow_ref, I do have some thoughts about the content of the tag.

Often the data a council provides about a PROW includes duplication.  For example, often the parish is given as a nice friendly name and also as a number.  Here's an example of the data given about a PROW that is provided by Devon County Council (both council and PROW chosen at random):
   <SimpleData name="PARISH">Abbots Bickington</SimpleData>
   <SimpleData name="STATUS">Footpath</SimpleData>
   <SimpleData name="NUMBER">1</SimpleData>
   <SimpleData name="NUMBER0">0</SimpleData>
   <SimpleData name="CODE">801FP1</SimpleData>
   <SimpleData name="NUMBER1">Abbots Bickington Footpath 1</SimpleData>

So the id of the parish appears three times (twice as a name and once
as a number); the number of the path appears three times; and the fact that it is a footpath appears three times.

For this, I guess you've got a choice betwen using the contents of CODE or NUMBER1. I would recommend choosing whatever appears on the Council's interactive map.  Devon County Council uses the contents of the NUMBER1 field, i.e.:
   Abbots Bickington Footpath 1


On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 16:36:53 Craig Loftus <[hidden email]> wrote:
Is it wise to preclude adding more tags to the namespace? As an example, one
additional tag that occurs to me is "prow:operator" (or "prow:authority"), to
describe the local authority the references 'belong' to.

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:35:31 Robert Whittaker <[hidden email]> wrote:
I wouldn't have thought that listing the authority would be that
useful -- you should be able to work that out from the county that the
way resides in.

My view is that it would be useful to include the id of the council as I do not think it's obvious which authority is involved.  For example, the data for Devon does not include Torbay.  And Bedfordshire is provided by two councils: Bedford and Central Bedfordshire.  Gloucestershire is provided by the councils of Gloucestershire and South Gloucestershire.

For my web site (www.rowmaps.com), I've chosen to use the two letter codes that are used by the OS Opendata 1:50 000 Scale Gazetteer:
   http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/products/50k-gazetteer/index.html

The two letter code is in field 12 of their colon-separated file.  There are 208 different values.  Fields 13 and 14 of that file also provide short names and long names.

Here are some examples of fields 12, 13 and 14:
   BF:Beds:Bedford
   BK:C Beds:Central Bedfordshire
   DN:Devon:Devon
   DU:Durham:Durham
   GR:Glos:Gloucestershire
   SG:S Glos:South Gloucestershire
   TB:Torbay:Torbay

Either you bundle the id of the council in with the name of the PROW as in:
   Devon Abbots Bickington Footpath 1

Or as suggested by Craig you could provide it in a separate tag - he was suggesting "prow:operator" or "prow:authority".

All of the data for councils that I've seen specify the parish in which the PROW appears.  So, really there are three separate pieces of information:
   id of council
   id of parish
   id of PROW
e.g.,:
   Devon
   Abbots Bickington
   Footpath 1
or:
   DN
   801
   FP1

--
Barry Cornelius
http://www.northeastraces.com/
http://www.thehs2.com/
http://www.rowmaps.com/
http://www.oxonpaths.com/
http://www.barrycornelius.com/

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




--
www.stevenhorner.com 
 @stevenhorner
 0191 645 2265 

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by Barry Cornelius
Barry Cornelius wrote:
> Robert Whittaker wrote:
> > I wouldn't have thought that listing the authority would be
> > that useful -- you should be able to work that out from the
> > county that the way resides in.
> My view is that it would be useful to include the id of the council
> as I do not think it's obvious which authority is involved.  For
> example, the data for Devon does not include Torbay.

I agree with Robert. OSM is a geographic database. We should (and do) have boundary polygons for Devon County Council, Torbay Council (unitary authority), and so on. Finding out which authority is responsible for the path is simply a matter of querying the database to find out whether a point/line is within this polygon. Many sites using OSM data already do this sort of query as a matter of course.

As a general principle, we optimise for the mapper. Mappers are our most important resource, therefore we make it as easy as possible for them to enter the data, and minimise the 'barriers to entry' - tagging rules they have to learn before they can enter data. One way we can do this is by reducing unnecessary duplication - such as entering tags when in fact the information can be inferred from a boundary polygon.

By analogy, we don't tag roads as ref=A361, operator=Devon County Council. In line with the principle of optimising for the mapper, we only tag the exceptions, which in this case are Strategic Roads (ref=A38, operator=Highways Agency).

cheers
Richard