Rob, Probably, I'm a little busy at the moment so not really going to get round to doing it in the short term. Can probably rustle up a list mapping the ways and nodes to the incorrect postcode fairly quickly which would probably help?
Aidan On 1 March 2013 17:35, Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's an interesting list for anyone who is concerned with data > cleansing! Some of the results are because only the first part of a > postcode has been entered, however even these have numerous formats (e.g. > CV3, CV3 ???, CV3 ///). For the other errors, it tends to be typos (e.g. > CO!6 7BJ, where ! is a probably a typo of 1 - Shift+1=!), but there are > also road names, numbers, and web URLs in the postcode tag. > > Would it be possible to create a list of these where we could add the > correct postcode in a new column and then upload the new data into OSM? > > Rob > > > > > On 1 March 2013 17:24, Aidan McGinley <aidmcgin+openstreet...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> * How accurate is the data already in OSM? >> Interesting question Rob, as of today there's approximately 200,000 ways >> or nodes tagged with postcodes in OSM, this is made up of about 29,000 >> unique postcodes. Those numbers are not 100% accurate as my bounding box >> for getting the data overlaps a bit with France and Ireland. I've removed >> the obvious French postcodes (5 digits) there might be a few I missed >> although I'm pretty sure the extras don't skew the numbers too much. >> >> I've compared the unique values from that list with the ONS dataset >> (excluding terminated postcodes) and come up with the list linked below [1] >> >> There's 1119 unique invalid postcodes, which of of course doesn't account >> for ways or nodes that are incorrectly tagged with a valid postcode but is >> a useful stat nonetheless. It should also be relatively easy to get those >> cleaned up I would think. >> Couple of notes about the data, there are a few postcodes that look like >> they are valid (e.g. BR3 1AZ, WC2H 9BD) but they have in fact got some >> invalid characters at the end that are not visible so that's why they are >> listed. It also includes postcodes in lowercase as well since it breaks >> from the convention of uppercase postcodes, you could argue that they >> should be in or out, but it was easier to leave them in. >> >> [1] >> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0viaV_xKHyCNmJDY1A1X092Zkk/edit?usp=sharing >> >> On 28 February 2013 23:44, Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Interestingly out of the 95 you also identified 2 postcodes that are >>> incorrect in OSM... raising the obvious questions: >>> >>> * How accurate is the data already in OSM? >>> * Should imports be compared to 100% accuracy or a more realistic >>> measure of OSM accuracy? >>> >>> Rob >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-GB mailing list >>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
