Re: [Talk-GB] Notes for places removed from FHRS?

I really don't have to justify how we in Nottingham have chosen to tag things, or what we map. This has evolved as a local consensus and works fine for us. However, we have found retaining older information invaluable for numerous purposes related to maintaining up-to-date data within OSM. In part

Re: [Talk-GB] Notes for places removed from FHRS?

Hi Andrew I wouldn't use FHRS:ID as the be all & end all. It doesn't mean they've closed down. On the ground verification is required. Depending on a local authority's preferences, existing companies changing a name, or a manager can trigger a new ID. Schools becoming academies in my area were

Re: [Talk-GB] Notes for places removed from FHRS?

I am more interested in the possibility that the business has closed. -- Andrew From: SK53 Sent: 21 December 2016 13:17:48 To: Andrew Hain Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Notes for places removed from FHRS? Technically these are still FHRS

Re: [Talk-GB] Notes for places removed from FHRS?

Technically these are still FHRS identifiers as old identifiers are not reused. Obviously in the case where a new business in the same premises gets an FHRS identifier then that should take precedence. We have quite a few in Nottingham, older ones are shunted into old_fhrs:id (pretty much our loca

[Talk-GB] Notes for places removed from FHRS?

Richmond has updated its FHRS records and two entries that previously appeared in the list are now reported as unresolved in the GregRS tool. Should I add notes that they are no longer in FHRS and should be checked in the ground or is adding notes from public quality assurance tools a bad idea?