<div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">Good stuff. We are all learning here. And the raw data is deliberably obfuscated.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div>Some of the UPRNs near road junctions are mysterious. They could be old IDs for objects since removed. Do we have a full list of what objects could be included?<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">My personal opinion is that UPRNs never apply to a road or road section. They apply to something that you cannot see, like a grit bin that is no longer there.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The only potentially legit duplicate I've seen so far is adjacent postboxes. They might get a single UPRN between them.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 18 Nov 2020, 09:58 James Derrick, <<a href="mailto:lists@jamesderrick.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">lists@jamesderrick.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
Morning all,
<br>
<br>
On 17/11/2020 15:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color:#007cff">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color:#007cff">what we have is
what, from a mapping perspective, is a single road (Glazebury
Way), but that comprises multiple OSM ways. So it's not
unreasonable to add the UPRN to all the ways which make up the
road.
<br>
</blockquote>
However, in this case I think I am talking bollocks. Although the
OSM mapper has assigned UPRN 10071171668 to Glazebrook Way, the OS
OpenUPRN OpenUSRN and OpenMap lookups link it to Gairloch Close.
If we look at Gairloch Close (USRN 3230053) on my USRN map:
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Owning up, that mapper is me! <blush>
<br>
<br>
Just as Rob N added U*RN to his portfolio of useful visualisation
tools, I noticed that adding UPRN to building=* gave
location-checked green circles, adding UPRN to highway=* didn't seem
to.
<br>
<br>
As an experiment, I added the same ID to both ref:GB:usrn and
ref:GB:uprn tags and promptly forgot about the double tagging.
<br>
<br>
Jez let me know in a changeset discussion here, and the errant tag
removed:
<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90968241" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90968241</a>
<br>
<br>
So, if there's any talking bollocks here - it's been uttered by me
on home turf! <span title=":-)"></span>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I've removed the experimental double-tagging, and attempted to
create a basic Overpass Turbo query to look for (what could be)
incorrect values:
<br>
<br>
---cut here---
<br>
<br>
[out:json][timeout:25];
<br>
// gather results
<br>
(
<br>
// node or way double tagged
<br>
node["ref:GB:usrn"]["ref:GB:uprn"]({{bbox}});
<br>
way["ref:GB:usrn"]["ref:GB:uprn"]({{bbox}});
<br>
// highway with Property
<br>
way["ref:GB:uprn"]["highway"]({{bbox}});
<br>
// building with Street
<br>
node["ref:GB:usrn"]["building"]({{bbox}});
<br>
way["ref:GB:usrn"]["building"]({{bbox}});
<br>
);
<br>
// print results
<br>
out body;
<br>
>;
<br>
out skel qt;
<br>
<br>
---cut here---
<br>
<br>
<br>
And now down the rabbit hole...
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color:#007cff">there's a single
linked UPRN that appears to be on Glazebury Way, or at least the
intersection of Glazebury Way and Gairloch Close, rather than one
of the properties on Gairloch Close. Follow that link, and it's
UPRN 10071171668:
<br>
<br>
<a href="https://uprn.uk/10071171668" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://uprn.uk/10071171668</a>
<br>
<br>
Now, there's nothing more we can discover from the maps and
lookups, given that the OS open data doesn't tell us precisely
what it is and the maps aren't sufficiently high-resolution. But
if we cheat a bit and go to the location on Google Maps, then
switch into street view:
<br>
<br>
<a href="https://goo.gl/maps/ojwFAP21D4HkUvX77" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/maps/ojwFAP21D4HkUvX77</a>
<br>
<br>
I have a strong hunch that UPRN 10071171668 is actually a
subsurface property (eg, a utilities conduit) accessed via that
manhole cover.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Now that's a whole level of complexity which I wasn't previously
aware of. If the data set includes data for ALL entity types (e.g.
not just buildings, streets and the odd post box), then my
assumption that a U*RN in the middle of a highway which looks like a
logical centre point for a way segment could be incorrect.
<br>
<br>
Looking out of my window (I did say this is home turf...) there is a
foul drain cover at the intersection of Glazebury/ Gisburn, and
likely one at Glazebury/ Gisburn (it's currently chucking it down
here, so not keen to check immediately).
<br>
<br>
Building UPRN tags appear to be more clear-cut, with the U*SN
location node around the centre of a building way.
<br>
<br>
<p>As we all learn more about the data, perhaps I (and others?) may
have been to quick to add USRN tags as they first became
available?</p>
<p>As several of you appear to have additional sources to validate
USRN, could you offer any suggestions to alter these specific
highway=residential please?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre cols="72">James
--
James Derrick
<a href="mailto:lists@jamesderrick.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">lists@jamesderrick.org</a>, Cramlington, England
I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me...
<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick</a>
</pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-GB mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
</blockquote></div>