Dealing with postcodes is done by Nominatim. Perhaps people might like to consider contributing to the code base to make this possible (see for instance <https://github.com/twain47/Nominatim/issues/541>).
The Irish community run their own Nominatim instance which: a) is easier to maintain as the dataset is smaller and b) is used to check broken polygon objects (through reporting those which change in size considerably between updates). Jerry On 4 October 2016 at 12:52, Paul Berry <pmberry2...@gmail.com> wrote: > In the light of recent talk about postcode coverage, I've started mapping > with postal_code the highways that front groups of buildings known to have > the same postcode. However, that's in turn led me to notice that OSM still > uses NPEMap as a reference for postcode searches. Given that NPEMap > themselves declare this data as no longer being updated (since October 2015 > from what I can gather) why does OSM still link there? > > Also, shouldn't OSM be looking inwards to its own data first (or some > aggregator service that provides this), then falling back to next-best > services like NPEMap for secondary results? > > The upshot is none of the postcodes I've added (as addr:postcode and > postal_code) in nearly three years of edits to OSM show up in a search, > other than the best-guessing of AB12 3## format, which is a bit > discouraging. > > Is there a plan to resolve this or am I missing something? > > Regards, > *Paul* > > > On 26 September 2016 at 14:29, SK53 <sk53....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I just re-read a post >> <http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/british-postcodes-on-openstreetmap.html> >> I wrote nearly 3 years ago. I think a lot of it holds true today, so I've >> copied the main points here : >> >> >> 1. The simplest, but not necessarily the easiest target, is to map at >> least one postcode in each postcode sector. This is harder than it appears >> because obvious things to map in sparsely populated rural areas may >> require >> surveys. For instance FHRS data has two B&Bs in Port Wemyss on Islay, but >> the names are not shown on the OS Open Data StreetView. Similarly a degree >> of caution must be exercised on farms in the Rhinns of Islay and on the Oa >> because individual farmsteads may include two or three properties (perhaps >> all owned by the same extended family, but nonetheless distinct. >> >> 2. Achieve 5% completion. This reflects a DOUBLING of current >> postcode data, and therefore must be regarded as ambitious. This is >> however, the minimum condition for breaking the back of the postcode >> problem. I believe with a concerted effort we could achieve this in 3 >> months, using conventional crowd-sourcing techniques. >> >> 3. Achieve 10% completion. A second doubling will probably require >> more tool based support. The obvious targets are semi-automated matching >> of >> FHRS & Land Registry data, and semi-automated identification of single >> postcode streets. >> >> 4. Postcodes along major roads (A & B roads). These may require some >> survey work, but again because many retail outlets are along such roads >> there is already a decent amount of information available from FHRS. >> >> This was December 2013, so perhaps 5% and 10% should be nearer 10% and >> 20%. I don't have up-to-date figures but back in May 2015 we had 73,372 >> full well-formed postcodes for GB (not whole of UK) which is still under >> 5%. These were located in just under 8000 postcode sectors (out of a total >> of 12,300 or so, with another 1000 populated in the last year). FHRS data >> has information on nearly 250k postcodes (inc NI) and 10k distinct postcode >> sectors. All these figures are based on raw strings, i.e., not checked if >> valid or in the right place. We still have thousands of schools mapped >> without postcode (even some where ref_edubase was added) so this is another >> fairly easy target. >> >> The big difference from 3 years ago is that we have more people >> interested in creating tools to assist these processes: something where the >> 3 month timescale is better than a shorter one. >> >> We have needed to get more address data for some, but on its own it's not >> a very strong motivator. My hopes for making big progress with Land >> Registry data were dashed once OpenAddresses and Owen Boswara clarified the >> 3rd party content in the data, and similarly the OpenAddresses project >> finished without having much in the way of additional data to offer us. (I >> still believe that there's scope in their approach and they built some >> interesting tools, but it was predicated on already having a decent amount >> of usable open data). When one looks at the formidable success of BANO in >> France there must be scope for something similar in the UK. >> >> I'm going to try & update my PC completion maps for the UK. I have some >> now but I know I have lost data from filtering the gb file. >> >> Jerry >> >> >> On 26 September 2016 at 11:44, Brian Prangle <bpran...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> It looks like the next UK Quarterly Project will be based on improving >>> address data for town centres using the food hygiene dataset. Why don't we >>> have a push generally on postcodes too, not limiting it to town centres? >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> On 26 September 2016 at 11:25, David Woolley <for...@david-woolley.me.uk >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> On 26/09/16 10:19, Owen Boswarva wrote: >>>> >>>>> That could be done but it's not straightforward; you'll get a lot of >>>>> overlapping postcode sectors and sectors with non-contiguous parts. >>>>> GeoLytix produced an open dataset like that some time ago: >>>>> http://blog.geolytix.net/tag/postcode-boundaries/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> In my view, inferring polygons is something that should only be done in >>>> the data consumer, as they involve creating data that cannot be justified >>>> from the input data. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 26 September 2016 at 09:39, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl >>>>> <mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> How about deriving polygons for the postcode sector level (XX9 9) >>>>> from the centroid point cloud, and adding the polygons to OSM? I >>>>> don't know how many that would give, but it would be a whole lot >>>>> less than 500k and still at a very usable level. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
