Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS/OSM comparison tool now includes graphs

2017-10-23 Thread Gregrs
Hi David, On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 05:15:25PM +0100, David Woolley wrote: Using postcode centroids is why so many self contributed business POIs on Google Maps are almost useless for finding the business. I hope no-one is adding POIs based on such data. I agree. This is why the comparison

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS/OSM comparison tool now includes graphs

2017-10-23 Thread David Woolley
On 23/10/17 16:23, Gregrs wrote: I'm not sure; it seems to be reverse-geocoded from postcode centroids (which is one reason I wouldn't recommend anyone directly copying FHRS data into OSM without some manual processing). I have contacted the FSA to see what can be done. Using postcode

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS/OSM comparison tool now includes graphs

2017-10-23 Thread paul.bivand
A lot of authorities exclude up to a third of fhrs records from geocoding.  These seem to largely be people trading from home and many social care establishments e.g. refuges from domestic violence.  It's quite plausible that authority practice on this can change. Paulbiv. Sent from my Samsung

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS/OSM comparison tool now includes graphs

2017-10-23 Thread Gregrs
Hi Robert, On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 04:22:35PM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: If you still have postcodes for those, you can look up the postcode centroid in Code-Point Open and use that as the lat/lon instead. (In fact, I think that's what the locations you're currently showing

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS/OSM comparison tool now includes graphs

2017-10-23 Thread Gregrs
Hi David, On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 04:03:11PM +0100, David Woolley wrote: Is it possible that they were using NPLG data, that is not open? I'm not sure; it seems to be reverse-geocoded from postcode centroids (which is one reason I wouldn't recommend anyone directly copying FHRS data into

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS/OSM comparison tool now includes graphs

2017-10-23 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
On 23 October 2017 at 15:52, Gregrs wrote: > Several authorities (Copeland, Middlesborough, Sedgemeoor, Portsmouth and > South Tyneside) seem to have removed geocodes for a large number of their > FHRS establishments recently, as shown by the sharp dropoff towards the end >

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS/OSM comparison tool now includes graphs

2017-10-23 Thread David Woolley
On 23/10/17 15:52, Gregrs wrote: Several authorities (Copeland, Middlesborough, Sedgemeoor, Portsmouth and South Tyneside) seem to have removed geocodes for a large number of their FHRS establishments recently, as shown by the sharp dropoff Is it possible that they were using NPLG data,

[Talk-GB] FHRS/OSM comparison tool now includes graphs

2017-10-23 Thread Gregrs
The FHRS/OSM comparison tool (http://gregrs.dev.openstreetmap.org/fhrs) now includes graphs showing progress for each district (e.g. http://gregrs.dev.openstreetmap.org/fhrs/district-91.html) and for the whole of Great Britain

Re: [Talk-GB] Leicester A

2017-10-23 Thread Philip Barnes
Hi Gerv Sorry you had problems, mapping hospital departments is one thing that has been puzzling other mappers and myself. Some mappers have used multiple hospitals, which breaks the one real life object to one osm object. There is only one LRI. I have not lived in Leicestershire for six years