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

Dave F davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com
Wed Dec 21 15:01:51 UTC 2016

Hi Andrew

I wouldn't use FHRS:ID as the be all & end all. It doesn't mean they've 
closed down. On the ground verification is required. Depending on a 
local authority's preferences, existing companies changing a name, or a 
manager can trigger a new ID. Schools becoming academies in my area were 
given new ones.

When a business closes down I fully delete the FHRS:ID. If a new one 
opens in the same premises I add the available data for it. This doesn't 
usually include FHRS, at first, as a premises has to be open for a while 
to gain a worthwhile rating.

Comment on SK53:
It's been agreed by many that OSM is not a historical store, but a 
record of what's currently there. Imagine how clogged the database would 
become if all historical data was retained or even added, as some wish 
to do. (I live in a Roman City, it would be a complete mess)


On 21/12/2016 13:05, Andrew Hain 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

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20161221/739b07ed/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list