[Talk-GB] UPRN wiki page

[James Derrick]

Morning all,

On 17/11/2020 15:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> what we have is what, from a mapping perspective, is a single road 
>> (Glazebury Way), but that comprises multiple OSM ways. So it's not 
>> unreasonable to add the UPRN to all the ways which make up the road.
> However, in this case I think I am talking bollocks. Although the OSM 
> mapper has assigned UPRN 10071171668 to Glazebrook Way, the OS 
> OpenUPRN OpenUSRN and OpenMap lookups link it to Gairloch Close. If we 
> look at Gairloch Close (USRN 3230053) on my USRN map:

Owning up, that mapper is me! <blush>

Just as Rob N added U*RN to his portfolio of useful visualisation tools, 
I noticed that adding UPRN to building=* gave location-checked green 
circles, adding UPRN to highway=* didn't seem to.

As an experiment, I added the same ID to both ref:GB:usrn and 
ref:GB:uprn tags and promptly forgot about the double tagging.

Jez let me know in a changeset discussion here, and the errant tag removed:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90968241

So, if there's any talking bollocks here - it's been uttered by me on 
home turf!


I've removed the experimental double-tagging, and attempted to create a 
basic Overpass Turbo query to look for (what could be) incorrect values:

---cut here---

[out:json][timeout:25];
// gather results
(
   // node or way double tagged
   node["ref:GB:usrn"]["ref:GB:uprn"]({{bbox}});
   way["ref:GB:usrn"]["ref:GB:uprn"]({{bbox}});
   // highway with Property
   way["ref:GB:uprn"]["highway"]({{bbox}});
   // building with Street
   node["ref:GB:usrn"]["building"]({{bbox}});
  way["ref:GB:usrn"]["building"]({{bbox}});
);
// print results
out body;
 >;
out skel qt;

---cut here---


And now down the rabbit hole...

> there's a single linked UPRN that appears to be on Glazebury Way, or 
> at least the intersection of Glazebury Way and Gairloch Close, rather 
> than one of the properties on Gairloch Close. Follow that link, and 
> it's UPRN 10071171668:
>
> https://uprn.uk/10071171668
>
> Now, there's nothing more we can discover from the maps and lookups, 
> given that the OS open data doesn't tell us precisely what it is and 
> the maps aren't sufficiently high-resolution. But if we cheat a bit 
> and go to the location on Google Maps, then switch into street view:
>
> https://goo.gl/maps/ojwFAP21D4HkUvX77
>
> I have a strong hunch that UPRN 10071171668 is actually a subsurface 
> property (eg, a utilities conduit) accessed via that manhole cover.

Now that's a whole level of complexity which I wasn't previously aware 
of. If the data set includes data for ALL entity types (e.g. not just 
buildings, streets and the odd post box), then my assumption that a U*RN 
in the middle of a highway which looks like a logical centre point for a 
way segment could be incorrect.

Looking out of my window (I did say this is home turf...) there is a 
foul drain cover at the intersection of Glazebury/ Gisburn, and likely 
one at Glazebury/ Gisburn (it's currently chucking it down here, so not 
keen to check immediately).

Building UPRN tags appear to be more clear-cut, with the U*SN location 
node around the centre of a building way.

As we all learn more about the data, perhaps I (and others?) may have 
been to quick to add USRN tags as they first became available?

As several of you appear to have additional sources to validate USRN, 
could you offer any suggestions to alter these specific 
highway=residential please?


James
-- 
James Derrick
     lists at jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England
     I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me...
     https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20201118/e1d14306/attachment.htm>