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 local convention for historic tags). Non-current FHRS identifiers are still extremely useful; I was able to check something for robbieonsea the other day by referring to a 2013 FHRS file. In the ideal world we'd have a full list of FHRS Ids over time. Jerry On 21 December 2016 at 13:05, Andrew Hain <andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > 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? > > -- > Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > 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
