On 19 July 2019 09:58:52 BST, "Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)" <robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote: > >I thus have to object not just to the new proposal but also any >continuation of the previous work to add single postcodes to buildings >under the centroid.
Thank you for your opinion, Robert. I will suspend adding postcodes from Code-point Open. Do others agree with it or would you rather have more postcodes in database first and work on accuracy and completeness afterwards? Indeed, Code-Point Open is less than ideal, the issues are almost always caused by lack of differentiation between residential and "large user" postcodes. On the other hand, it is the only legal source of postcodes we have, other than local knowledge, but the latter is realistically limited to a dozen or so postcodes per mapper. Businesses website could also be OK but they are usually copyrighted. Derived databases, like FHRS, are generally not OK, a unless also permitted by Royal Mail. It's not that I don't care about complete addresses either. But my spare time is limited, and I feel I can contribute more by adding missing postcodes in a town vs adding complete addresses in a few streets. Others may have different priorities. I disagree that having data from Code-Point Open outside OSM is sufficient. Excluding surveyed information, everything in OSM is already publicly available (or should be). Yet, we all keep using and working on OSM. Besides, how to extend or combine information without adding it first? Best regards, ndrw6 _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
