Hi Lester
I think there needs to be some thought as to the "proper channel to feed
corrections to the 'data officer' responsible". It took me months to get
a 'data officer' to correct the location of a single UPRN, so my thought
is that this needs to be a 'public' (open) channel that shows a) the
number of issues identified (the rationale for making data open) and b)
how long it takes for these to be investigated and resolved (if
appropriate).
On 10/07/2020 14:21, Lester Caine wrote:
On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
This is, of course, one of the problems with proprietary data. It can
be difficult to spot errors, because the people who are most likely
to spot errors - members of the general public with local knowledge -
tend not to have easy access to the data.
Spot on ...
The 'proprietary data' is however the input from the relevant officer
at the council covering the area. Probably originally tacked on to
another job description and someone who probably had no training is
this 'new' function? I was receiving NLPG updates for many years and
the vast majority of 'updates' were corrections to data rather than
additions. The problem has always been not allowing public access to
what has always been public data and now we do have access there needs
to be a proper channel to feed corrections to the 'data officer'
responsible for the relevant slice of raw data. I don't think THAT has
changed since the requirements for councils to provided the raw NPLG
data passed into law? I'm fairly sure the street data is part of the
same legal framework ...
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
