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

Andrew Hain andrewhainosm at hotmail.co.uk
Wed Dec 21 13:30:21 UTC 2016


I am more interested in the possibility that the business has closed.
--
Andrew
________________________________
From: SK53 <sk53.osm at gmail.com>
Sent: 21 December 2016 13:17:48
To: Andrew Hain
Cc: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Notes for places removed from FHRS?

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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20161221/9dd4721c/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list