[Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Dec 28 22:33:08 UTC 2017

On 29-Dec-17 07:28 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On 28/12/2017 19:31, Lester Caine wrote:
>> Get the return address right ...
>> On 28/12/17 16:12, Colin Spiller wrote:
>>> I've been adding postcodes in the Bradford BD area using Robert & 
>>> gregrs
>>> useful tools. I've just noticed that the Shell station at the Rooley
>>> Lane / Rooley Avenue junction BD5 8JR is now reported as having an
>>> incorrect postal unit (the final two letters of the postcode). This
>>> postcode appears widely on the internet for this site, but the RM
>>> postcode finder thinks it should be Rooley Avenue, BD6 1DA.
>> PAF file has ...
>> Shell Filling Station
>> Rooley Avenue
>> BD6 1DA
>> and BD5 8JR is not listed having been deleted in 2009
>> http://checkmypostcode.uk/bd58jr so the real problem is does one leave
>> the faulty postcode in place because we can't use the PAF data or do we
>> validate postcodes against the codepoint database and remove those that
>> are not listed
> It's an interesting conundrum, on several levels. We can certainly 
> validate against Codepoint Open or the ONSPD, as these are open data. 
> So if they say the postcode is impossible (because it's defunct), then 
> we can definitely delete it if we want to.
> Replacing it with the correct postcode, though, is harder. We'd need a 
> source that isn't derived from PAF. But Googling for this particular 
> station, all the sources have the old, incorrect postcode - even 
> Google itself! (I would expect they're all using the Shell data, of 
> course).
> So that leaves us with three options, at least initially:
> 1. Leave it as is. We know it's wrong, but it's consistent with every 
> other source, and it's from the only canonical source.
> 2. Replace it with the right one. More useful, but potentially risky 
> from a licensing perspective.
> 3. Delete it and leave the entry with no postcode. Probably the best 
> we can do as far as accuracy is concerned (in line with the general 
> principle that data is better missing than wrong, if it can't be 
> right), and avoids any licence conflict. But this is the least useful 
> for users of the data (since, in this case, even the wrong postcode 
> will identify the location in practice - for obvious reasons, Royal 
> Mail will deliver to defunct postcodes long after they have been 
> deleted, and many sat-navs will work with defunct postcodes too).
> Maybe the best solution is to leave it alone for now, and see if we 
> can persuade Shell to fix it. Deleting the postcode risks it being 
> re-added by someone else who spots its absence and decides to be 
> helpful, without realising that if they use the RM postcode finder to 
> validate it that isn't compatible with OSM's licence.

Usually a note is used to make comments to other mappers. In this case a 
note to say that post code xxx is defunct would explain the situation. 
Possibly a tag 'defunct:postcode=xxx would also be explanatory.

Could the post code be derived from surrounding features?
I don't know how detailed the post codes there are .. but if features in 
OSM surrounding it were of the same post code (and correct) then they 
could be used to derive the post code?

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list