Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Nick]

Personally, I don't think that classifying UPRNs (e.g. historic, parent, 
non-addressable etc.) nor publishing dynamically the allocations to the 
custodians of batches of UPRNs would detract from the commercial value 
derived by Ordnance Survey (OS). I fully understand that as a limited 
company, OS is perhaps less motivated to collaborate with the public. 
However, public bodies such as the Environment Agency surely have a 
broader responsibility to the public?


Why I get on my high horse about this is the knowledge that UPRNs and 
related data have errors but perhaps even more tragically, the lack of 
openness can lead to direct impact to people's lives. I also realise 
that the OSM Foundation is a non-profit organisation whose purpose is to 
support the OSM project - my reading is that this is technical rather 
than political. I also re-read Owen Boswarva's blog 
https://www.owenboswarva.com/blog/post-addr1.htm and end up feeling that 
the publishing of Open Data is a bit like the comment "When information 
is missing, we speculate about what the government might be hiding, or 
fill in the gaps with anecdotes." 
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/02/government-publish-data-coronavirus-deaths]


I therefore believe that the current situation regarding openness leads 
to speculation and as Mark so clearly states to "deliberately minimise 
the utility of the Open UPRN database" - the risk is that this sort of 
speculation leads to a lack of trust


On 01/08/2020 21:19, Mark Goodge wrote:



On 01/08/2020 20:24, Nick wrote:
As a follow up, Robert Whittaker also submitted an FOI asking for 
"... a list of all UPRNs that are classified as 'historic', and a 
separate list of all those classified as a 'parent' ". the 
logicto me was that this would help users of Open Data to then filter 
these out. The response that this was "exempt from disclosure under 
section 21 of the FOIA" - if you are interested follow the link to 
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lists_of_historic_and_parent_upr


In another move, the Environment Agency flood risk website no longer 
allows you to link directly to a property by UPRN. You used to be able 
to construct a link in this format:


https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood-risk/risk?address=[uprn] 



But that no longer works. Now, you have to search by postcode, and 
when you select an address the site then sets a cookie which 
determines which property details you will be shown. And, checking the 
source of the postcode page, it no longer has the UPRN as a variable 
for each property. Instead, it's a simple sequential number. For 
example, if there are ten properties in a postcode, then the variables 
will be numbered 0 to 9.


I'm pretty certain this is deliberate, in order to stop people using 
their site as a way to look up addresses from a UPRN. And I suspect 
it's part of the same attempts by GeoPlace to deliberately minimise 
the utility of the Open UPRN database.


Mark

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Andy Mabbett]

On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 at 09:41, Nick  wrote:

> On 01/08/2020 21:19, Mark Goodge wrote:

> > I'm pretty certain this is deliberate, in order to stop people using
> > their site as a way to look up addresses from a UPRN. And I suspect
> > it's part of the same attempts by GeoPlace to deliberately minimise
> > the utility of the Open UPRN database.

> the current situation regarding openness leads
> to speculation and as Mark so clearly states to "deliberately minimise
> the utility of the Open UPRN database" - the risk is that this sort of
> speculation leads to a lack of trust

Do you have a plausible hypothesis to explain the removal of UPRNs
from the flood warning pages, that also gives us a reason to trust the
organisation that enacted that change?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Russ Garrett]

On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 at 10:20, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> Do you have a plausible hypothesis to explain the removal of UPRNs
> from the flood warning pages, that also gives us a reason to trust the
> organisation that enacted that change?

It's almost certainly because some lawyer or other spotted that it's a
violation of the PSGA (formerly PSMA) license under which the
AddressBase data is made available to the Environment Agency.

https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/documents/licensing/psga-member-licence.pdf

There's no conspiracy here beyond OS zealously protecting its data, as
it always has done.

-- 
Russ Garrett
r...@garrett.co.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Nick]

I have no problem with licencing but the UPRN and related data is 
managed by Authority custodians - do they not retain ownership of that data?


If the authorities sell it to OS, then should this be raised with The Rt 
Hon Alok Sharma MP (he owns 100% of the shares of OS)?


N.B. there are some aspects to address data that is subject to other IP 
rights but the remainder. is surely of public interest and value.


On 02/08/2020 10:34, Russ Garrett wrote:

On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 at 10:20, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

Do you have a plausible hypothesis to explain the removal of UPRNs
from the flood warning pages, that also gives us a reason to trust the
organisation that enacted that change?

It's almost certainly because some lawyer or other spotted that it's a
violation of the PSGA (formerly PSMA) license under which the
AddressBase data is made available to the Environment Agency.

https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/documents/licensing/psga-member-licence.pdf

There's no conspiracy here beyond OS zealously protecting its data, as
it always has done.



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Jez Nicholson]

My initial thought was also "conspiracy!". Licence problem is more likely,
or perhaps they were concerned that someone might poll the URL with every
available UPRN.

On Sun, 2 Aug 2020, 11:38 Nick,  wrote:

> I have no problem with licencing but the UPRN and related data is
> managed by Authority custodians - do they not retain ownership of that
> data?
>
> If the authorities sell it to OS, then should this be raised with The Rt
> Hon Alok Sharma MP (he owns 100% of the shares of OS)?
>
> N.B. there are some aspects to address data that is subject to other IP
> rights but the remainder. is surely of public interest and value.
>
> On 02/08/2020 10:34, Russ Garrett wrote:
> > On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 at 10:20, Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
> >> Do you have a plausible hypothesis to explain the removal of UPRNs
> >> from the flood warning pages, that also gives us a reason to trust the
> >> organisation that enacted that change?
> > It's almost certainly because some lawyer or other spotted that it's a
> > violation of the PSGA (formerly PSMA) license under which the
> > AddressBase data is made available to the Environment Agency.
> >
> >
> https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/documents/licensing/psga-member-licence.pdf
> >
> > There's no conspiracy here beyond OS zealously protecting its data, as
> > it always has done.
> >
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Andy Mabbett]

On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 at 11:58, Jez Nicholson  wrote:

>>> the Environment Agency flood risk website no longer
>>> allows you to link directly to a property by UPRN

> perhaps they were concerned that someone might poll the URL with every 
> available UPRN.

If that were the case, I'm confident the government web team have the
knowledge and wherewithal to apply rate limiting.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] weeklyOSM #523 2020-07-21-2020-07-27

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 523,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of a lot of 
things happening in the openstreetmap world:

 https://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/13451/

Enjoy! 

Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in 
to https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login with your OSM account. Read more about 
how to write a post here: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

weeklyOSM? 
who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Nick]

Hi Jez

You can limit the number of requests to a specific URL (or set of URLs) 
by IP address - so polling "every available UPRN" would not be an issue 
(e.g. can limit the number of requests from a given IP over a given time 
period).


Cheers

Nick

On 02/08/2020 11:58, Jez Nicholson wrote:

My initial thought was also "conspiracy!". Licence problem is more 
likely, or perhaps they were concerned that someone might poll the URL 
with every available UPRN.


On Sun, 2 Aug 2020, 11:38 Nick, > wrote:

I have no problem with licencing but the UPRN and related data is
managed by Authority custodians - do they not retain ownership of that 
data?


If the authorities sell it to OS, then should this be raised with The Rt
Hon Alok Sharma MP (he owns 100% of the shares of OS)?

N.B. there are some aspects to address data that is subject to other IP
rights but the remainder. is surely of public interest and value.

On 02/08/2020 10:34, Russ Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 at 10:20, Andy Mabbett > wrote:

>> Do you have a plausible hypothesis to explain the removal of UPRNs
>> from the flood warning pages, that also gives us a reason to trust the
>> organisation that enacted that change?
> It's almost certainly because some lawyer or other spotted that it's a
> violation of the PSGA (formerly PSMA) license under which the
> AddressBase data is made available to the Environment Agency.
>
> 
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/documents/licensing/psga-member-licence.pdf

>
> There's no conspiracy here beyond OS zealously protecting its data, as
> it always has done.
>

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/t 



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

[Mark Goodge]

On 02/08/2020 11:58, Jez Nicholson wrote:
My initial thought was also "conspiracy!". Licence problem is more 
likely, or perhaps they were concerned that someone might poll the URL 
with every available UPRN.


I'm certain that it's been done to prevent people using the EA site as a 
means of looking up an address from a UPRN. That's the only plausible 
explanation for a change which both makes the site more complex from an 
operator point of view (instead of a single database lookup, it now 
needs to do several to identify the property from the postcode and 
sequence ID) and less useful from a user perspective (because you can no 
longer bookmark and share a link to a specific property).


If it is a licence issue, then that's going to have ramifications beyond 
the EA. A lot of local authorities use the UPRN in the URL for 
property-related information. For example, if you live in Cambridge, you 
can check when your bins will be emptied by appending the UPRN to the page:


https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/check-when-your-bin-will-be-emptied#id=24173390

and if you live in Worcestershire, you can check lots of useful stuff 
about your property:


http://e-services.worcestershire.gov.uk/MyLocalArea/MyLocalAreaResults.aspx?uprn=100120673306

It seems to me that this is precisely how the UPRN should be used by 
government and other organisations. To quote Matt Hancock from when he 
was the secretary of state for DCMS:


"The UPRN is the jewel at the heart of the addressing system. It links 
address data across a diverse range of systems and services facilitating 
greater accuracy and immediate data sharing"


and the government's own statement on open UPRNs states that

"Users need property and street information with identifiers that remain 
the same over time and are easy to exchange between systems."


and

"Systems, services and applications that store or publish data sets 
containing property and street information must use the UPRN and USRN 
identifiers."


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-standards-for-government/identifying-property-and-street-information

So it seems to me that there should be no licensing issues with using 
the UPRN as a unique identifier in a public URL. If anything, the 
requirement to use UPRNs in any published dataset seems to pretty much 
make it the simplest means of compliance.


(I appreciate that this is going a bit off topic for OSM, so I think 
I'll leave it there unless there's anything else directly 
mapping-related, but it's worth noting that this change has already been 
mentioned on social media and I suspect it's an issue which will gain 
more traction over time).


Mark

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb