[Talk-GB] Post Box Last Collection Times

[Dan Glover]

On 2021-12-05 10:19, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:

> I note, in this thread, the proposal that Post Boxes that show a "D"
> after the ID should have that letter included in the ID tagging in
> OSM.
> 
> This idea seems to be accepted without challenge (so far), but I would
> contend that the "D" is not part of the ID at all, as it does not
> distinguish between boxes with the same ID, one with "D" and another
> with "X" (or any other letter).  So, the "D" is not required to
> identify the box. [...]

Thanks for raising this. I know Robert Whittaker's Posthoc tool which 
measures progress against the data released by Royal Mail in 2013 
doesn't require and ignores the "D" suffix - partly because it's a 
subsequent invention and not in the 2013 data. Its true that box AB12 
345 may become AB12 345D at some point and that "D" essentially means 
09:00/07:00 collection times are shown.

It may not be generally known but https://gridreferencefinder.com/ 
recognises post box locations (where they are referenced on OSM) if 
entered into the "Location" field. Entering, for example, ME5 5, will 
bring up a location but ME5 231 has to be entered as ME5 231D because 
that's what's recorded in OSM. So in this particular use case (which may 
be niche) the addition of the suffix breaks things.

Of passing interest, perhaps, is what Royal Mail itself does in it's 
"Near You" tool for finding post boxes. The suffix is never included as 
part of the box details. See 
https://www.royalmail.com/services-near-you/postbox/sw1a-1aa/0000ME5231 
which relates to ME5 231(D) as an example.

> A.  Do we really need to record the presence of this "D", if we have
> already recorded the "Last Collection Time"?

My practice (which may be in part influenced by the Grid Reference 
Finder behaviour, I will admit) is to omit the D (or, on parcel boxes, 
P) suffix, but to record the times as shown.

> B.  <if A=yes>  Should we record it as part of the ID (even though it
> is not reallly a part of the ID - see above), or should it go in
> another field connected to the collection time?

 From the point of view of encouraging accuracy and reducing complexity, 
it would seem best to avoid introducing another field...

> C.  <if recorded as part of the ID> should it be preceeeded by a
> space?

...and similarly the most practical option and in line with general OSM 
practice is "record what you see". This is perhaps relevant also to 
Street Complete users where it may not be sensible to introduce a 
process which requires additional "training".

I realise I have contradicted myself in terms of "record what you see" 
after admitting I omit the D suffix.

On the subject of Street Complete, I see a comment elsewhere that the 
box number isn't treated as a field requiring confirmation. That's fine, 
in general, since the numbers "never" change - however some areas have 
renumbered from time to time and it is not unknown for the plates to be 
put in the wrong boxes or to have the wrong post code prefix. Sometimes 
these issues have been corrected many years later. I don't know what 
additional effort would be needed in terms of development and for the 
user to be required to confirm the box number. However...

There are some post box records where the reference field holds bogus 
data, for example comments like "covered by a sticky label" or "AB12 3?5 
couldn't read the photo". If Street Complete treats the presence of 
*any* reference as sufficient then the opportunity to correct some of 
these may be lost. Would it be in order to remove references which 
clearly are not the actual reference, so as to cause Street Complete to 
prompt for a further attempt? Eventually missing or broken plates do get 
replaced, stickers are removed and there is a realistic prospect of 
getting the reference.

To summarise my perspective on this:

- The existence, location and up-to-date posting times are the primary 
information which needs to be captured (and refreshed as collection 
times change) for most purposes.
- The box number is useful in tracking progress and perhaps to members 
of the Letter Box Study Group [1] or other enthusiasts who may wish to 
find specific boxes [2].
- Whatever way this is approached it needs to be simple enough to 
produce good quality data with minimum "training".


Dan

[1] For full disclosure, I am a member of the LBSG but my comments are 
not made on behalf of the Group.
[2] There is some concern within the LBSG that good geospatial data will 
feed heritage theft if coupled with information about "rare" boxes.