[Talk-GB] UK address project update
ndmatthews at ndmatthews.plus.com
Fri Nov 12 23:08:36 UTC 2021
The most important question to me is: "What mechanism are you envisaging
to conflate with existing OSM data?"
For example, my local town has a large percentage of buildings mapped
individually, with addresses on a lot of those buildings.
On 12/11/2021 20:46, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> Hi all,
> I wrote in September (see ) about an address project that OSM UK
> has kicked off. At the time I noted that one of the questions we
> needed to answer was which datasets we should use to get a set of
> "potential address locations" that will then be shown to contributors
> to help them collect the address information. In short there are two
> A. Open UPRN data
> B. Using Cadastral (Land Registry) INSPIRE parcels to split
> generalised buildings from Ordnance Survey open data, and then taking
> the centroid of the split building.
> I am pleased to be able to share a map (
> https://osm-uk-addresses.russss.dev/ ) showing both of these approaches.
> The map shows:
> * UPRN points (Green dots)
> * LR Polygons (Blue areas)
> * Ordnance Survey split generalised buildings falling within a LR
> polygon (light brown areas)
> * The addressable locations from the LR Polygons & OS Buildings
> approach (Red dots)
> * The underlying OpenStreetMap map. Note that this means you might
> see two buildings in some locations: those from OS and those in
> OSM (grey areas)
> Firstly, please note that the red dots for Scotland are currently
> missing. Scotland's cadastral parties are published by ROS and will be
> added to our process early next week.
> Secondly, having reviewed a few areas for the Green and Red dots, we
> decided that the Red dots (LR Polygons & OS Buildings approach) gives
> a better set of addressable locations.I use the word "better" very
> much in a relative way. Neither approach is perfect but our view is
> that the red points are a little bit closer to what we want. They have
> fewer false positives which likely matters more. We're keen to get
> your view - do you agree? disagree?
> Finally, where the red points fall short are in dense city centres and
> areas with a high concentration of council houses. This is because of
> a lack of cadastral parcels in these areas (e.g. one large cadastral
> parcel for the whole area rather than individual cadastral parcels for
> each home or business unit). We are keen to get your ideas as to how
> to work around this. So far our ideas are:
> 1. Identify these locations and direct experienced OSMers to them
> (leaving the easy places for the new mappers we hope to attract)
> to add the address by ground survey.
> 2. Or same as 1 but instead of the experienced OSMer having to do a
> ground survey (as might not live locally) allow them to "pull" the
> green dots through into the final user interface so that local
> people new to OSM can collect the address. This could be done by
> adding these to OSM; that is adding points to OSM that just have a
> UPRN or similar tag at first so that they can be made available in
> the map editor we are working on.
> Feedback and alternate ideas welcomed. I am particularly keen to know
> if you support idea 2 as typically we have avoided this in the past.
> For example we did not add the postcode centroids to OSM. This time we
> can add an addressable location with a UPRN, city, postcode and/or
> street name. The final details (house name / number) would then need
> adding via the crowdsource project.
> I hope this all made sense. If not, I'm happy to answer questions or
> arrange a virtual meeting.
> Thank you,
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB