Hi all, On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 12:36:34AM +0000, Dave F wrote:
I've been prefixing them with disused: as the fhrs:id will be probably be updated after a new review. I found keeping the old one was useful as a checking reference.
Prefixing with disused, old or not could be useful. (I haven't checked which is in more frequent use.) EdLoach added an issue for the FHRS/OSM comparison tool that suggests the use of not:fhrs:id. Whilst the functionality he describes isn't currently supported by the tool, I will try to get round to adding it at some point: see https://github.com/gregrs-uk/python-fhrs-osm/issues/50
I've also compiled a list of disused: objects to send to my LA's hygiene team in an attempt to get them to update their database. Not much luck with that.
If you're on Twitter, it might be worth tweeting @drsiant (Head of Information Management at FSA) as she seems keen for this sort of exchange of information.
I would also agree with Colin that you should definitely leave the address data in place. Also the source:addr=FHRS Open Data should be left in place if present and probably added if not present.
Thanks, Greg -- Twitter: @gregrs_uk http://gregrs.dev.openstreetmap.org PGP key ID: 64907C8A Fingerprint: EBD1 077F CCDD 841E A505 3FAA D2E8 592E 6490 7C8A
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
