[Talk-GB] Notes for places removed from FHRS?

[SK53]

Technically these are still FHRS identifiers as old identifiers are not
reused. Obviously in the case where a new business in the same premises
gets an FHRS identifier then that should take precedence.

We have quite a few in Nottingham, older ones are shunted into old_fhrs:id
(pretty much our local convention for historic tags).

Non-current FHRS identifiers are still extremely useful; I was able to
check something for robbieonsea the other day by referring to a 2013 FHRS
file.

In the ideal world we'd have a full list of FHRS Ids over time.

Jerry

On 21 December 2016 at 13:05, Andrew Hain <andrewhainosm at hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

>
> Richmond has updated its FHRS records and two entries that previously
> appeared in the list are now reported as unresolved in the GregRS tool.
> Should I add notes that they are no longer in FHRS and should be checked in
> the ground or is adding notes from public quality assurance tools a bad
> idea?
>
> --
> Andrew
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20161221/63572478/attachment.html>