On 19 July 2019 17:58:58 CEST, Devonshire wrote:
>
>I know that Robert is sincere in his views but the classic "don't add
>data to OSM because it will spoil someone else's enjoyment" always
>makes me chuckle. In most parts of the country the idea that the
>current cohort of mappers can add
On 20/07/2019 10:36, Tony Shield wrote:
Hi
Starting to get a little confused here - my brother lives in Northern
Ireland and has a BT postcode which he has given me. Am I allowed to put
into OSM?
You can add the postcode to any address in OSM, if you know the full
address from personal
Hi
Starting to get a little confused here - my brother lives in Northern
Ireland and has a BT postcode which he has given me. Am I allowed to put
into OSM?
TonyS999
On 20/07/2019 08:02, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 19/07/2019 22:36, nd...@redhazel.co.uk wrote:
On 19/07/2019 20:29, Mark Goodge
On 19/07/2019 22:36, nd...@redhazel.co.uk wrote:
On 19/07/2019 20:29, Mark Goodge wrote:
ONS postcode products are also OGL, so can be reused in OSM and
similar. They're also more useful than Code-Point Open in that they
also include lookups to a number of other government codes (such as
On 19/07/2019 20:29, Mark Goodge wrote:
ONS postcode products are also OGL, so can be reused in OSM and
similar. They're also more useful than Code-Point Open in that they
also include lookups to a number of other government codes (such as
local authority GSS codes). It also differentiates
On 19/07/2019 15:15, Andrzej wrote:
Indeed, Code-Point Open is less than ideal, the issues are almost
always caused by lack of differentiation between residential and
"large user" postcodes. On the other hand, it is the only legal
source of postcodes we have, other than local knowledge, but
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019, at 3:21 PM, Andrzej wrote:
>
> Thank you for your opinion, Robert. I will suspend adding postcodes from
> Code-point Open.
>
> Do others agree with it or would you rather have more postcodes in database
> first and work on accuracy and completeness afterwards?
>
>
On 19/07/2019 15:15, Andrzej wrote:
Do others agree with it or would you rather have more postcodes in database
first and work on accuracy and completeness afterwards?
Andrez ... while the code-point table does provide a list against which
missing post codes can be identified, the key piece
On 19 July 2019 09:58:52 BST, "Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)"
wrote:
>
>I thus have to object not just to the new proposal but also any
>continuation of the previous work to add single postcodes to buildings
>under the centroid.
Thank you for your opinion, Robert. I will suspend adding
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 22:20, ndrw6 wrote:
> Over past several months I've been adding postcodes from Code-Point
> Open. I've streamlined the procedure a bit, so I can now add the tags
> without spelling out every single one of them, but it is still a manual
> and labour intensive process:
>
>
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019, at 12:56 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> In that case maybe it would be a good idea to merge existing address-only
> nodes
> with building outlines as the first step?
Some buildings (usually post office locations but also some others such as
council offices) can have more
These should reasonably easy to remove from the dataset, easier than checking
for existing addresses. Thanks for the suggestion.
Best regards,
ndrw6
On 17 July 2019 18:09:39 BST, David Woolley wrote:
>On 16/07/2019 22:19, ndrw6 wrote:
>> 3. Use a collation plugin to collate both datasets
On 16/07/2019 22:19, ndrw6 wrote:
3. Use a collation plugin to collate both datasets with "centroid
distance" set to "< 15m". The condition is there to apply postcodes only
to small buildings in direct vicinity of the codepoint centroid.
This algorithm will apply PO Box number postcodes to
I will try to avoid adding postcodes in these cases. Basically, narrow down the
list of postcodes to add to these that don't have any neighbouring objects with
addr: tags.
Best regards,
ndrw6
On 17 July 2019 12:10:32 BST, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>17 Jul 2019, 12:58 by nd...@redhazel.co.uk:
17 Jul 2019, 12:58 by nd...@redhazel.co.uk:
> I haven't seen such guidelines for the UK myself. In general people prefer
> having address tags on buildings. Separate address points are more of a stop
> gap solution until building shapes are sufficiently accurate.
>
In that case maybe it would
I haven't seen such guidelines for the UK myself. In general people prefer
having address tags on buildings. Separate address points are more of a stop
gap solution until building shapes are sufficiently accurate.
An exception is addresses on entrances, which some mappers seem to prefer. I
16 lip 2019, 23:19 od nd...@redhazel.co.uk:
> added as separate points rather than tags (automated edit will add
> addr:postcode tags directly to the building, this is what I chose to do
> manually as well)
>
Duplicating address data or adding
part to a separate node and part to
building
Hi,
Over past several months I've been adding postcodes from Code-Point
Open. I've streamlined the procedure a bit, so I can now add the tags
without spelling out every single one of them, but it is still a manual
and labour intensive process:
https://github.com/ndrw6/import_postcodes/
18 matches
Mail list logo
