Does anyone know what happened to the Somerset Levels super-relation?
I don't know how to search for deleted stuff so I can't look up it's
history to see what happened.
TIA.
Nick.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
There's a cupcake business locally which I suspect is a home business
(as the streets in that area are only residential AFAIK). I haven't
actually been there to check it out.
Steve
On 22/11/2016 15:54, Dave F wrote:
I think they're misusing 'private' where they mean 'personal'
I've only
On 22/11/2016 15:22, Dave F wrote:
Are you now suggesting the electoral roll should be hidden? Please
don't assume duplicating freely available data in OSM makes it
'personal' or somehow tainted.
It is possible to be 'ex-directory' in relation to the electoral register.
--
Steve
---
This
In future examples, depending on the way, you may wish to consider
access=customer which covers access for all users. (intentionally top
posting, because I want to ;-) )
DaveF
On 23/05/2016 11:27, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Thanks for this. (Apologies for top-posting, it's something that
I think they're misusing 'private' where they mean 'personal'
I've only come across instances of mobile retailers. Does anyone have an
example of a home business on the FHRS website?
If there's only a partial address/postcode how are OSM contributors
adding them?
Are the co-ordinates
On 22/11/2016 13:41, David Woolley wrote:
On 22/11/16 12:45, Dave F wrote:
Please clarify exactly what data you believe to be personal? As it
contains no data on "identifiable living people", could you provide
evidence that it falls under the DPA?
Occupation.
There's no correlation to an
On 22/11/16 12:45, Dave F wrote:
Please clarify exactly what data you believe to be personal? As it
contains no data on "identifiable living people", could you provide
evidence that it falls under the DPA?
Occupation.
(Real name and address can be obtained by anyone from the edited
On 22/11/16 12:58, Dave F wrote:
On 21/11/2016 20:23, SK53 wrote:
A bit late, but according to the FHRS manual businesses run from
private addresses should be obscured (usually at the postcode district
level).
Do you have a link?
On 21/11/2016 20:23, SK53 wrote:
A bit late, but according to the FHRS manual businesses run from
private addresses should be obscured (usually at the postcode district
level).
Do you have a link?
Not all authorities follow these rules; I have in the past had to
point out to one authority
On 21/11/2016 13:38, Harry Wood wrote:
"Apart from size, I fail to see the difference"
Well the difference is whether you can go there and see the business.
The effect of this verifiability rule might be a size thing, which might mean
that the cottage industry baking cupcakes doesn't get added
On 21/11/2016 13:18, David Woolley wrote:
On 21/11/16 12:58, Dave F wrote:
The FHRS database listing a business at a domestic address is
verification IMO.
It's also personal data. I actually thought that FHRS itself
suppressed some of this, but if you include it, it becomes subject to
the
I understood the general rule of thumb was to map to the data and not to
the renderer (which is an unknown quantity). If you're concerned about,
say, OSM Standard layer, then I'm sure some kind of look-ahead could be
employed when preparing a street for rendering:
"If a way shares a start or end
12 matches
Mail list logo
