[Talk-GB] Quarterly Project April-June 2016
Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com
Sat Apr 2 11:34:24 UTC 2016
On 1 April 2016 at 23:55, Dave F <davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com> wrote:
> If healthcare is chosen, could any validating/completion/geojson websites
> created be based around local authority boundaries rather than post-code
> areas. Any databases would be LA based.
I think the Health datasets are more likely to be categorised by
Health Authority (or CCG or whatever they're called these days)
boundaries, which probably don't correspond with Local Government
boundaries. Personally, I think postcode areas/districts are good,
since we can use them for anything that has an address, and they tend
to lead to nice sized areas based on population (and hence amenity)
> For the schools project I found the post code list awkward to compare
> against other datasets, such as the LA defined food hygiene. Also quite a
> few missing schools were well outside the boundary, I couldn't work out why:
What were you trying to do with the Food Hygiene data? Presumably you
can search by postcode too can't you? Or are you using the downloads
and the files are just by LA district areas? Would it be helpful if
someone compiled all the data and made postal area extracts? Are there
any other reasons to use LA boundaries rather than postcodes?
The presence of the red markers (OSM objects not matched to something
in the official data) outside the postal area on e.g.
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/progress/BA/ is because I've jut
used a simple rectangular bounding box around the postal area to
extract the OSM objects from my working database. It could be made
more sophisticated, but there didn't seem much point, as those red
markers don't contribute to the "matching percentage" stats, and it's
easy enough to visually exclude them when looking at how much of an
area has been fixed.
More information about the Talk-GB