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 particular those places whose occupants tend to be ephemeral, or which change names frequently (marginal retail locations, nightclubs & some takeaways) can often be linked to open data if and only if one knows one of the previous names. Additionally, locals will often refer to places/shops etc. by former long-standing names. A good example of this is a restaurant who's name escapes me, but if I call it The Priory, locals will know exactly where I mean. In its previous guise as a Toby Carvery it was generally also known by this name. Lastly photographs get outdated and the ability to accurately locate a photo can often be assisted if former business names are available for cross-checking. This applies obviously to Mapillary & OpenStreetCam, but also Geograph and my own personal photos which, for OSM purposes go back to 2009. Jerry On 21 December 2016 at 15:01, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> wrote: > 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 given new > ones. > > When a business closes down I fully delete the FHRS:ID. If a new one opens > in the same premises I add the available data for it. This doesn't usually > include FHRS, at first, as a premises has to be open for a while to gain a > worthwhile rating. > > Comment on SK53: > It's been agreed by many that OSM is not a historical store, but a record > of what's currently there. Imagine how clogged the database would become if > all historical data was retained or even added, as some wish to do. (I live > in a Roman City, it would be a complete mess) > > Cheers > DaveF > > On 21/12/2016 13:05, Andrew Hain 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 > listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > > > ------------------------------ > [image: Avast logo] > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
