>I think it’s useful to have a wider discussion on this topic.
When did you widely discuss it previously?
> an on the ground rule where you map what you can see on the ground.
Just because an entity is behind a wall it doesn't mean it can't be mapped.
>1. all have separate inspections and FHRS.
Which is why they should be mapped as "separate" object within OSM.
> but there is no on ground sign of this.
The FHRS database designates that. The FHRS database is a valid source
for mapping OSM.
> 2. the only way you can tell that they are separate is...
Unsure what your point is. Again, if there's a separate FHRS then map a
separate FHRS object.
>3. The only way to verify their existence is through the FHRS open
data and the store locator
They're not the only ways, but they are valid ways.
>however there isn’t an open license to this as far as I’m aware.
If you believe FHRS isn't an "open licence" *, then why are you adding
FHRS data?!
* food hygiene rating data in the UK is published under the
Open Government Licence. There's a clue in the name.
> we can’t see the existence of the store
As you're assuming you can't map that shop in OSM, why are you adding
its FHRS ID from the FHRS database?
> Tesco should have a warning on that store page to highlight that the
public can’t access it!
So, you're saying it is accessible because Tesco haven't said it's
private? You seem confused. In OSM we use the access tag to determine
who can use a service.
> 4.(a-i)
OK, you appear to be scrabbling. Most of those are irrelevant or moot to
the original point of mapping separate FHRS IDs.
> 5. The same FHRS id being mapped to multiple items.
Again, moot to the original problem. Please stick to the subject.
> My view is that these shouldn’t be mapped separately as they are an
implementation of something else.
That's a contradiction.
> Not all data needs to be stored in OSM.
One of the first bits of advice I read when I started contributing was
"if it's physical & doesn't move, you can map it".
> I’m of the view that we don’t need to have a one to one match between
objects in OSM and other external datasets.
If it has a separate FHRS ID it should have a separate OSM object.
The rest of your comments are moot or irrelevant to the original post.
Cheers
DaveF
On 21/03/2026 23:16, Shaun McDonald via Talk-GB wrote:
I’m the person referenced at the start of the thread...
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
