Hi all,
@DaveF has commented on one of my changesets about the formatting of “prow_ref” on a public right of way. I think rather than a back and forth on that changeset it would be useful to get community input (again).
I had edited a right of way and, when doing so, I also made an edit to the prow_ref
field.
PRoW refs are not consistent across different local authorities and sometimes are not even consistent within the same local authority (sometimes parish borders get changed etc). Cornwall’s referencing system for PRoWs is also on the more opaque end of things. For example, references show up on their PRoW map as “Parish/path no./link no. : 216/21/2”.
I therefore edited the prow_ref to fit a consistent format, matching a lot of other PRoWs in Cornwall (though, admittedly, I mapped a lot of them) and matching the suggestion on the wiki (</parish name/> </PRoW type/> </reference number/>) which follows on from discussions on talk-GB. Conveniently, this format is also consistent with @Robert_Whittaker 's PRoW progress tracker which allows PRoW mapping to be tracked, including in Cornwall. I also kept the original reference number on the way by adding prow_ref:official=216/21/2
.
I feel that this is a sensible compromise. In doing so, we have a consistent tagging scheme of prow_refs across (large parts of) the country, in a human readable format, but can also add the authority’s formatted version if we want.
Dave contends that we shouldn’t be making up our own refs and that we wouldn’t do that on roads.
I disagree with this stance. Firstly, “prow_ref” is objectively an OSM object. I don’t think any local authority has a “prow_ref” field in their data. So it seems to me that it’s OK for us to format a local authority’s number to fit with a consistent formatting. Although the reference might not match the definitive statement, we aren’t making up our own ordering and so it is straightforward to understand the relationship if you have a look up table.
Secondly, UK road refs are a perfect example of a consistent formatting. How roads are referenced doesn’t change between local authority borders. Roads are also signed with their reference numbers on the ground. Public rights of way do not have consistent formatting for their refs and are not usually signed with a reference number. So, whilst tempting to make the comparison, I don’t think it quite holds.
So rather than the two of us arguing about this, I wonder if there is any community consensus