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

SK53 sk53.osm at gmail.com
Wed Dec 21 17:51:45 UTC 2016

I really don't have to justify how we in Nottingham have chosen to tag
things, or what we map. This has evolved as a local consensus and works
fine for us.

However, we have found retaining older information invaluable for numerous
purposes related to maintaining up-to-date data within OSM. In particular
those places whose occupants tend to be ephemeral, or which change names
frequently (marginal retail locations, nightclubs & some takeaways) can
often be linked to open data if and only if one knows one of the previous

Additionally, locals will often refer to places/shops etc. by former
long-standing names. A good example of this is a restaurant who's name
escapes me, but if I call it The Priory, locals will know exactly where I
mean. In its previous guise as a Toby Carvery it was generally also known
by this name.

Lastly photographs get outdated and the ability to accurately locate a
photo can often be assisted if former business names are available for
cross-checking. This applies obviously to Mapillary & OpenStreetCam, but
also Geograph and my own personal photos which, for OSM purposes go back to


On 21 December 2016 at 15:01, Dave F <davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com> wrote:

> 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)
> Cheers
> DaveF
> 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 listTalk-GB at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> ------------------------------
> [image: Avast logo]
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161221/40312094/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list