[Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

Adam Snape adam.c.snape at gmail.com
Fri Dec 29 08:30:01 UTC 2017


Hi,

I don't think we would delete a postcode found in other Open Data just on
the basis of it not being in Codepoint Open; the error could lie in
Codepoint Open itself. I suggest that a FIXME would be appropriate where
two sources appear to contradict each other.

Of course in this case we know the correct answer (assuming it is accurate)
but that is only through the PAF. Speaking generally, I don't think it's
good practice to be using non-free resources like this to research
information which is not clear from open data, even if we don't use the
information directly. The problems are twofold, namely that such an
approach is using a unusable sources to validate open data and there is a
risk that mistakes or Easter eggs on the source could lead to the deletion
of valid data.

Kind regards,

Adam

On 28 Dec 2017 8:29 p.m., "Mark Goodge" <mark at good-stuff.co.uk> 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
>> BRADFORD
>> 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.
>
> Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171229/78530d04/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list