Talk:Key:prow ref

Why should this not be used on relations? Dmgroom (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Page updated to allow relations. At the time of edit, this tag had been used on 93 relations. Additionally, the designation=public_footpath and similar tags, which this tag is used on, has been used on dozens on relations. Casey boy (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Not an adequate format for all councils

The <parish><path-type><number> format is widely used, but it is not the only format used. Leicestershire paths seem to have references belonging to a single system which is not bounded by parish boundaries. SK53 (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Added a note to the format description section. Casey boy (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Not an adequate format for anyone

The problem with the format as recommended country wide (<parish><path-type><number>) is it will rarely relate to anything outside OSM. It's similar to making up a language which no one, other than a few contributors, will comprehend. I believe the modern parlance is to 'create an echo chamber'.

Paths need to be tagged how they are currently referenced by the organisations given the *authority* to assign them, not how they might have been in years gone by. That organisation certainly isn't OSM.

Let's face it, the person anyone is most likely to correspond with regarding footpath refs is someone from the LA. It makes sense to use their numbering system

No one would suggest re-referencing motorways in a similar manner, because it would be thought a very silly idea..--DaveF63 (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed on "using their numbering system" which I think this format does (i.e. Footpath 32 -> Parish FP 32). Therefore this information would clearly be understandable to the LA. I do agree, however, by suggesting a common format we are mostly catering to OSM users/devs. Robert Whittaker's PRoW progress tool, for example, is great in helping getting PRoWs mapped but does require some common format (note though, he can change it per LA district). If information is not lost by using this format, is that really an issue? Casey boy (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)