When contributors go off on a tangent or make claims which show they've
no understanding of the subject, it's perfectly valid to describe their
comments as 'moot or irrelevant'.
I won't reply to your individual points as many are off topic &
irrelevant; I'll just be repeating myself. Please stick to the subject.
As actions of both yourself & Shaun prevent data consumers from
retrieving accurate counts of businesses (such as Tesco) they reduce the
quality of the OSM database. Please don't reduce the quality of the OSM
database.
Cheers
DaveF
On 22/03/2026 18:12, Gregory Marler wrote:
Hi DaveF and Shaun,
My local OSM group (Edinburgh) is following this thread. It may not be
the intention and I hope you mean good, but some see the tone as
aggressive. Particularly DaveF repeatedly saying "your comments are
moot or irrelevant", it can come across as dismissing Shaun's
contribution to the topic.
It may be good for further replies in this thread (from anyone) to
take an extra moment to read what you said. It's never bad to add in
some positive comments or a "thank you" when responding to someone,
especially to avoid an e-mail that is only disagreements.
OpenStreetMap is nothing without the individual humans that contribute
it, we should aim to keep the communication mediums as welcoming places!
Back to the topic of FHRS...
DaveF you questioned when it had been discussed previously. It was
discussed during a 2019 project, and even documented on the Wiki page
about FHRS:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Food_Hygiene_Rating_Scheme#Multiple_food_hygiene_ratings_for_a_location
A lot of the questions are also being discussed on the community
forum, in the thread for the current Quarterly Project regarding FHRS.
It would be good for anyone in this thread to read through that too. I
believe a lot more of UK OSMers read the forum.
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/2026-q1-quarterly-project-food-hygiene-ratings/140660
My personal view is that the OSM database isn't a place to just
replicate the FHRS database, even if it's tempting to have 100%
completeness in OSM.
It's good to go with on-the-ground are the businesses present and
verifiable, although there are still edge cases. I know a church
building that very obviously has signage inside for both the church
and the conference venue (shared building ownership), I have mapped
them as distinct OSM objects and if they each had an FHRS id then I
would use both. However if you have to go into the office, open a
folder, and read the paperwork of an organisation that also uses the
kitchen, then I don't see the purpose of adding that to OSM. If I want
to know every organisation that is registered for food hygiene at the
property, then directly looking at the FHRS dataset makes more sense.
Thank you everyone who has been discussing the use of FHRS. I'm
particularly grateful for those of you checking and mapping so many
FHRS-registered organisations and using it to spot missing POIs. I'm
too busy mapping playground equipment to spend lots of time on that.
All the best,
Gregory Marler (LivingWithDragons)
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
