Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

[Mick Orridge]

On 28/12/17 22:33, Warin wrote:

On 29-Dec-17 07:28 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:



On 28/12/2017 19:31, Lester Caine wrote:

Get the return address right ...

On 28/12/17 16:12, Colin Spiller wrote:
I've been adding postcodes in the Bradford BD area using Robert & 
gregrs

useful tools. I've just noticed that the Shell station at the Rooley
Lane / Rooley Avenue junction BD5 8JR is now reported as having an
incorrect postal unit (the final two letters of the postcode). This
postcode appears widely on the internet for this site, but the RM
postcode finder thinks it should be Rooley Avenue, BD6 1DA.


PAF file has ...
Shell Filling Station
Rooley Avenue
BRADFORD
BD6 1DA

and BD5 8JR is not listed having been deleted in 2009
http://checkmypostcode.uk/bd58jr so the real problem is does one leave
the faulty postcode in place because we can't use the PAF data or do we
validate postcodes against the codepoint database and remove those that
are not listed


It's an interesting conundrum, on several levels. We can certainly 
validate against Codepoint Open or the ONSPD, as these are open data. 
So if they say the postcode is impossible (because it's defunct), 
then we can definitely delete it if we want to.


Replacing it with the correct postcode, though, is harder. We'd need 
a source that isn't derived from PAF. But Googling for this 
particular station, all the sources have the old, incorrect postcode 
- even Google itself! (I would expect they're all using the Shell 
data, of course).


So that leaves us with three options, at least initially:

1. Leave it as is. We know it's wrong, but it's consistent with every 
other source, and it's from the only canonical source.


2. Replace it with the right one. More useful, but potentially risky 
from a licensing perspective.


3. Delete it and leave the entry with no postcode. Probably the best 
we can do as far as accuracy is concerned (in line with the general 
principle that data is better missing than wrong, if it can't be 
right), and avoids any licence conflict. But this is the least useful 
for users of the data (since, in this case, even the wrong postcode 
will identify the location in practice - for obvious reasons, Royal 
Mail will deliver to defunct postcodes long after they have been 
deleted, and many sat-navs will work with defunct postcodes too).


Maybe the best solution is to leave it alone for now, and see if we 
can persuade Shell to fix it. Deleting the postcode risks it being 
re-added by someone else who spots its absence and decides to be 
helpful, without realising that if they use the RM postcode finder to 
validate it that isn't compatible with OSM's licence.


Usually a note is used to make comments to other mappers. In this case 
a note to say that post code xxx is defunct would explain the 
situation. Possibly a tag 'defunct:postcode=xxx would also be 
explanatory.


Could the post code be derived from surrounding features?
I don't know how detailed the post codes there are .. but if features 
in OSM surrounding it were of the same post code (and correct) then 
they could be used to derive the post code?
The ONS postcode file (Open Government Licence other than BT postcodes 
for NI) for August 2017 (download here:- 
https://ons.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=1e4a246b91c34178a55aab047413f29b) 
holds terminated postcodes. It's entry for BD5 8JR shows a terminated 
date of 2009 06. I guess the replacement postcode could be narrowed down 
using the date introduced field along with perhaps the OA01 field (2001 
census output area) plus easting and northing.



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

[Ian Caldwell]

It was the only house between two junctions on a road. It was in the
country.


Ian

On 29 December 2017 at 13:08, Mark Goodge  wrote:

>
>
> On 29/12/2017 11:41, Ian Caldwell wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 29 December 2017 at 10:47, Mark Goodge  m...@good-stuff.co.uk>> wrote:
>>
>> since a filling station isn't going to be large enough to have a
>> single-user postcode
>>
>>
>> Not necessarily I used to own a three bedroom house that had its own
>> postcode.
>>
>
> That sounds a little implausible. Are you sure it wasn't just the only
> *house* within that postcode? Or was it, possibly, the only remaining
> property with that postcode after others have been reassigned (or
> demolished)?
>
> (It's relatively easy to check, if you give us the postcode, even if it's
> now a defunct one).
>
>
> Mark
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Talk-GB] Non-free sources [was: Re: Importing Shell fuel stations]

[David Woolley]

On 29/12/17 13:05, Mark Goodge wrote:
We draw the line at using a source which is subject to database right, 
and where using the content would be an infringement of that right.


We also don't allow material used in breach of contract, even if only a 
click wrap contract.  Google Street View falls into that category, as 
well as possibly being a database (facts organised by geographical 
location).   Most web sites attempt to create contracts limiting the use 
of the information they contain.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

[Mark Goodge]

On 29/12/2017 11:41, Ian Caldwell wrote:




On 29 December 2017 at 10:47, Mark Goodge > wrote:


since a filling station isn't going to be large enough to have a
single-user postcode


Not necessarily I used to own a three bedroom house that had its own 
postcode.


That sounds a little implausible. Are you sure it wasn't just the only 
*house* within that postcode? Or was it, possibly, the only remaining 
property with that postcode after others have been reassigned (or 
demolished)?


(It's relatively easy to check, if you give us the postcode, even if 
it's now a defunct one).


Mark

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Non-free sources [was: Re: Importing Shell fuel stations]

[Mark Goodge]

On 29/12/2017 11:14, Andy Mabbett wrote:

On 29 December 2017 at 08:30, Adam Snape  wrote:


Speaking generally, I don't think it's good practice to be using
non-free resources like this to research information which is
not clear from open data, even if we don't use the information
directly.


Are you happy for people to enter into OSM the name of a store, read
from the store's shop-front signage?

What if that signage is an artistic design, meriting copyright?

What if it is written in a proprietary, copyrighted font?


Names aren't subject to copyright. They may be protected by trademarks, 
but mapping them is not an infringement of a trademark.  So, provided we 
didn't discover the name from a source which is itself protected by 
database right (eg, a proprietary directory such as Yellow Pages), then 
there's nothing stopping us from using a name. Reading it directly from 
the shopfront would always be OK. And we're not reproducing the font or 
the logo, so that's immaterial.



What about from a non-free photograph, found online? Or in a book,
magazine or newspaper?


Those are fine. We are not reproducing any of the content, we are merely 
ascertaining facts.



Were exactly do we draw the line? Why there?


We draw the line at using a source which is subject to database right, 
and where using the content would be an infringement of that right. 
Because facts are not subject to copyright, but a collection of facts 
can be subject to database right. And it's the database right which, in 
the context of OSM, is the key issue.


Mark


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

[Ian Caldwell]

On 29 December 2017 at 10:47, Mark Goodge  wrote:

> since a filling station isn't going to be large enough to have a
> single-user postcode
>
>
Not necessarily I used to own a three bedroom house that had its own
postcode.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

[Mark Goodge]

On 28/12/2017 22:33, Warin wrote:


Could the post code be derived from surrounding features?
I don't know how detailed the post codes there are .. but if features in 
OSM surrounding it were of the same post code (and correct) then they 
could be used to derive the post code?


It will almost certainly share a postcode with at least one neighbouring 
property, yes. A filling station is not going to receive enough post to 
justify a "large user" postcode. So if it's surrounded by properties 
that all have the same postcode, then that's definite enough. But if one 
neighbour has one postcode, and a different neighbour has a different 
one, then we can't be certain which is correct for this property... :-)


Mark

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

[Mark Goodge]

On 29/12/2017 08:30, Adam Snape wrote:

Hi,

I don't think we would delete a postcode found in other Open Data just 
on the basis of it not being in Codepoint Open; the error could lie in 
Codepoint Open itself. I suggest that a FIXME would be appropriate where 
two sources appear to contradict each other.


There are two open data sources of postcodes: Codepoint Open and the ONS 
Postcode Database. Ultimately, both of those are populated from Royal 
Mail data, since it's RM that assigns postcodes. So if CPO and ONSPD 
agree that a postcode is deleted (and I'm not aware of any instance in 
which they've disagreed), that's canonical.


I think a FIXME is probably a good solution here; hopefully there will 
be somebody on the ground who can verify the correct postcode simply by 
comparison with known postcodes for neighbouring properties (since a 
filling station isn't going to be large enough to have a single-user 
postcode).


Mark

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

I don't think we would delete a postcode found in other Open Data just on
the basis of it not being in Codepoint Open; the error could lie in
Codepoint Open itself. I suggest that a FIXME would be appropriate where
two sources appear to contradict each other.

Of course in this case we know the correct answer (assuming it is accurate)
but that is only through the PAF. Speaking generally, I don't think it's
good practice to be using non-free resources like this to research
information which is not clear from open data, even if we don't use the
information directly. The problems are twofold, namely that such an
approach is using a unusable sources to validate open data and there is a
risk that mistakes or Easter eggs on the source could lead to the deletion
of valid data.

Kind regards,

Adam

On 28 Dec 2017 8:29 p.m., "Mark Goodge"  wrote:

>
>
> On 28/12/2017 19:31, Lester Caine wrote:
>
>> Get the return address right ...
>>
>> On 28/12/17 16:12, Colin Spiller wrote:
>>
>>> I've been adding postcodes in the Bradford BD area using Robert & gregrs
>>> useful tools. I've just noticed that the Shell station at the Rooley
>>> Lane / Rooley Avenue junction BD5 8JR is now reported as having an
>>> incorrect postal unit (the final two letters of the postcode). This
>>> postcode appears widely on the internet for this site, but the RM
>>> postcode finder thinks it should be Rooley Avenue, BD6 1DA.
>>>
>>
>> PAF file has ...
>> Shell Filling Station
>> Rooley Avenue
>> BRADFORD
>> BD6 1DA
>>
>> and BD5 8JR is not listed having been deleted in 2009
>> http://checkmypostcode.uk/bd58jr so the real problem is does one leave
>> the faulty postcode in place because we can't use the PAF data or do we
>> validate postcodes against the codepoint database and remove those that
>> are not listed
>>
>
> It's an interesting conundrum, on several levels. We can certainly
> validate against Codepoint Open or the ONSPD, as these are open data. So if
> they say the postcode is impossible (because it's defunct), then we can
> definitely delete it if we want to.
>
> Replacing it with the correct postcode, though, is harder. We'd need a
> source that isn't derived from PAF. But Googling for this particular
> station, all the sources have the old, incorrect postcode - even Google
> itself! (I would expect they're all using the Shell data, of course).
>
> So that leaves us with three options, at least initially:
>
> 1. Leave it as is. We know it's wrong, but it's consistent with every
> other source, and it's from the only canonical source.
>
> 2. Replace it with the right one. More useful, but potentially risky from
> a licensing perspective.
>
> 3. Delete it and leave the entry with no postcode. Probably the best we
> can do as far as accuracy is concerned (in line with the general principle
> that data is better missing than wrong, if it can't be right), and avoids
> any licence conflict. But this is the least useful for users of the data
> (since, in this case, even the wrong postcode will identify the location in
> practice - for obvious reasons, Royal Mail will deliver to defunct
> postcodes long after they have been deleted, and many sat-navs will work
> with defunct postcodes too).
>
> Maybe the best solution is to leave it alone for now, and see if we can
> persuade Shell to fix it. Deleting the postcode risks it being re-added by
> someone else who spots its absence and decides to be helpful, without
> realising that if they use the RM postcode finder to validate it that isn't
> compatible with OSM's licence.
>
> Mark
>
> ___
> 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