[Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512

Nick nick at foresters.org
Fri Jul 10 21:27:34 UTC 2020


Hi Lester

I think there needs to be some thought as to the "proper channel to feed 
corrections to the 'data officer' responsible". It took me months to get 
a 'data officer' to correct the location of a single UPRN, so my thought 
is that this needs to be a 'public' (open) channel that shows a) the 
number of issues identified (the rationale for making data open) and b) 
how long it takes for these to be investigated and resolved (if 
appropriate).

On 10/07/2020 14:21, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> This is, of course, one of the problems with proprietary data. It can 
>> be difficult to spot errors, because the people who are most likely 
>> to spot errors - members of the general public with local knowledge - 
>> tend not to have easy access to the data.
>
> Spot on ...
> The 'proprietary data' is however the input from the relevant officer 
> at the council covering the area. Probably originally tacked on to 
> another job description and someone who probably had no training is 
> this 'new' function? I was receiving NLPG updates for many years and 
> the vast majority of 'updates' were corrections to data rather than 
> additions. The problem has always been not allowing public access to 
> what has always been public data and now we do have access there needs 
> to be a proper channel to feed corrections to the 'data officer' 
> responsible for the relevant slice of raw data. I don't think THAT has 
> changed since the requirements for councils to provided the raw NPLG 
> data passed into law? I'm fairly sure the street data is part of the 
> same legal framework ...
>



More information about the Talk-GB mailing list