> Dealing with postcodes is done by Nominatim. Perhaps people might like to consider contributing to the code base to make this possible (see for instance <https://github.com/twain47/Nominatim/issues/541>).
Thanks for the pointer. I didn't realise it was an open issue with them. Regards, *Paul* On 4 October 2016 at 13:22, SK53 <sk53....@gmail.com> wrote: > Dealing with postcodes is done by Nominatim. Perhaps people might like to > consider contributing to the code base to make this possible (see for > instance <https://github.com/twain47/Nominatim/issues/541>). > > The Irish community run their own Nominatim instance which: > > a) is easier to maintain as the dataset is smaller > and b) is used to check broken polygon objects (through reporting those > which change in size considerably between updates). > > Jerry > > > > On 4 October 2016 at 12:52, Paul Berry <pmberry2...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In the light of recent talk about postcode coverage, I've started mapping >> with postal_code the highways that front groups of buildings known to have >> the same postcode. However, that's in turn led me to notice that OSM still >> uses NPEMap as a reference for postcode searches. Given that NPEMap >> themselves declare this data as no longer being updated (since October 2015 >> from what I can gather) why does OSM still link there? >> >> Also, shouldn't OSM be looking inwards to its own data first (or some >> aggregator service that provides this), then falling back to next-best >> services like NPEMap for secondary results? >> >> The upshot is none of the postcodes I've added (as addr:postcode and >> postal_code) in nearly three years of edits to OSM show up in a search, >> other than the best-guessing of AB12 3## format, which is a bit >> discouraging. >> >> Is there a plan to resolve this or am I missing something? >> >> Regards, >> *Paul* >> >> >> On 26 September 2016 at 14:29, SK53 <sk53....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I just re-read a post >>> <http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/british-postcodes-on-openstreetmap.html> >>> I wrote nearly 3 years ago. I think a lot of it holds true today, so I've >>> copied the main points here : >>> >>> >>> 1. The simplest, but not necessarily the easiest target, is to map >>> at least one postcode in each postcode sector. This is harder than it >>> appears because obvious things to map in sparsely populated rural areas >>> may >>> require surveys. For instance FHRS data has two B&Bs in Port Wemyss on >>> Islay, but the names are not shown on the OS Open Data StreetView. >>> Similarly a degree of caution must be exercised on farms in the Rhinns of >>> Islay and on the Oa because individual farmsteads may include two or >>> three >>> properties (perhaps all owned by the same extended family, but >>> nonetheless >>> distinct. >>> >>> 2. Achieve 5% completion. This reflects a DOUBLING of current >>> postcode data, and therefore must be regarded as ambitious. This is >>> however, the minimum condition for breaking the back of the postcode >>> problem. I believe with a concerted effort we could achieve this in 3 >>> months, using conventional crowd-sourcing techniques. >>> >>> 3. Achieve 10% completion. A second doubling will probably require >>> more tool based support. The obvious targets are semi-automated matching >>> of >>> FHRS & Land Registry data, and semi-automated identification of single >>> postcode streets. >>> >>> 4. Postcodes along major roads (A & B roads). These may require some >>> survey work, but again because many retail outlets are along such roads >>> there is already a decent amount of information available from FHRS. >>> >>> This was December 2013, so perhaps 5% and 10% should be nearer 10% and >>> 20%. I don't have up-to-date figures but back in May 2015 we had 73,372 >>> full well-formed postcodes for GB (not whole of UK) which is still under >>> 5%. These were located in just under 8000 postcode sectors (out of a total >>> of 12,300 or so, with another 1000 populated in the last year). FHRS data >>> has information on nearly 250k postcodes (inc NI) and 10k distinct postcode >>> sectors. All these figures are based on raw strings, i.e., not checked if >>> valid or in the right place. We still have thousands of schools mapped >>> without postcode (even some where ref_edubase was added) so this is another >>> fairly easy target. >>> >>> The big difference from 3 years ago is that we have more people >>> interested in creating tools to assist these processes: something where the >>> 3 month timescale is better than a shorter one. >>> >>> We have needed to get more address data for some, but on its own it's >>> not a very strong motivator. My hopes for making big progress with Land >>> Registry data were dashed once OpenAddresses and Owen Boswara clarified the >>> 3rd party content in the data, and similarly the OpenAddresses project >>> finished without having much in the way of additional data to offer us. (I >>> still believe that there's scope in their approach and they built some >>> interesting tools, but it was predicated on already having a decent amount >>> of usable open data). When one looks at the formidable success of BANO in >>> France there must be scope for something similar in the UK. >>> >>> I'm going to try & update my PC completion maps for the UK. I have some >>> now but I know I have lost data from filtering the gb file. >>> >>> Jerry >>> >>> >>> On 26 September 2016 at 11:44, Brian Prangle <bpran...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> It looks like the next UK Quarterly Project will be based on improving >>>> address data for town centres using the food hygiene dataset. Why don't we >>>> have a push generally on postcodes too, not limiting it to town centres? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Brian >>>> >>>> On 26 September 2016 at 11:25, David Woolley < >>>> for...@david-woolley.me.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 26/09/16 10:19, Owen Boswarva wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> That could be done but it's not straightforward; you'll get a lot of >>>>>> overlapping postcode sectors and sectors with non-contiguous parts. >>>>>> GeoLytix produced an open dataset like that some time ago: >>>>>> http://blog.geolytix.net/tag/postcode-boundaries/ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In my view, inferring polygons is something that should only be done >>>>> in the data consumer, as they involve creating data that cannot be >>>>> justified from the input data. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 26 September 2016 at 09:39, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl >>>>>> <mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> How about deriving polygons for the postcode sector level (XX9 9) >>>>>> from the centroid point cloud, and adding the polygons to OSM? I >>>>>> don't know how many that would give, but it would be a whole lot >>>>>> less than 500k and still at a very usable level. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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