Good stuff. We are all learning here. And the raw data is deliberably obfuscated.
Some of the UPRNs near road junctions are mysterious. They could be old IDs for objects since removed. Do we have a full list of what objects could be included? My personal opinion is that UPRNs never apply to a road or road section. They apply to something that you cannot see, like a grit bin that is no longer there. The only potentially legit duplicate I've seen so far is adjacent postboxes. They might get a single UPRN between them. On Wed, 18 Nov 2020, 09:58 James Derrick, <li...@jamesderrick.org> wrote: > Morning all, > > On 17/11/2020 15:32, Mark Goodge wrote: > > what we have is what, from a mapping perspective, is a single road > (Glazebury Way), but that comprises multiple OSM ways. So it's not > unreasonable to add the UPRN to all the ways which make up the road. > > However, in this case I think I am talking bollocks. Although the OSM > mapper has assigned UPRN 10071171668 to Glazebrook Way, the OS OpenUPRN > OpenUSRN and OpenMap lookups link it to Gairloch Close. If we look at > Gairloch Close (USRN 3230053) on my USRN map: > > > Owning up, that mapper is me! <blush> > > Just as Rob N added U*RN to his portfolio of useful visualisation tools, I > noticed that adding UPRN to building=* gave location-checked green circles, > adding UPRN to highway=* didn't seem to. > > As an experiment, I added the same ID to both ref:GB:usrn and ref:GB:uprn > tags and promptly forgot about the double tagging. > > Jez let me know in a changeset discussion here, and the errant tag > removed: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90968241 > > So, if there's any talking bollocks here - it's been uttered by me on home > turf! > > > I've removed the experimental double-tagging, and attempted to create a > basic Overpass Turbo query to look for (what could be) incorrect values: > > ---cut here--- > > [out:json][timeout:25]; > // gather results > ( > // node or way double tagged > node["ref:GB:usrn"]["ref:GB:uprn"]({{bbox}}); > way["ref:GB:usrn"]["ref:GB:uprn"]({{bbox}}); > // highway with Property > way["ref:GB:uprn"]["highway"]({{bbox}}); > // building with Street > node["ref:GB:usrn"]["building"]({{bbox}}); > way["ref:GB:usrn"]["building"]({{bbox}}); > ); > // print results > out body; > >; > out skel qt; > > ---cut here--- > > > And now down the rabbit hole... > > there's a single linked UPRN that appears to be on Glazebury Way, or at > least the intersection of Glazebury Way and Gairloch Close, rather than one > of the properties on Gairloch Close. Follow that link, and it's UPRN > 10071171668: > > https://uprn.uk/10071171668 > > Now, there's nothing more we can discover from the maps and lookups, given > that the OS open data doesn't tell us precisely what it is and the maps > aren't sufficiently high-resolution. But if we cheat a bit and go to the > location on Google Maps, then switch into street view: > > https://goo.gl/maps/ojwFAP21D4HkUvX77 > > I have a strong hunch that UPRN 10071171668 is actually a subsurface > property (eg, a utilities conduit) accessed via that manhole cover. > > > Now that's a whole level of complexity which I wasn't previously aware of. > If the data set includes data for ALL entity types (e.g. not just > buildings, streets and the odd post box), then my assumption that a U*RN in > the middle of a highway which looks like a logical centre point for a way > segment could be incorrect. > > Looking out of my window (I did say this is home turf...) there is a foul > drain cover at the intersection of Glazebury/ Gisburn, and likely one at > Glazebury/ Gisburn (it's currently chucking it down here, so not keen to > check immediately). > > Building UPRN tags appear to be more clear-cut, with the U*SN location > node around the centre of a building way. > > As we all learn more about the data, perhaps I (and others?) may have been > to quick to add USRN tags as they first became available? > > As several of you appear to have additional sources to validate USRN, > could you offer any suggestions to alter these specific highway=residential > please? > > > James > -- > James Derrick > li...@jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England > I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me... > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick > > _______________________________________________ > 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
