Closed Firefishy closed 3 years ago
@gregrs-uk 👋 Interested in this?
Sorry for the delay in replying, @Firefishy. I'm a teacher so tend to be busy during school terms and don't get a chance to work on projects.
These look like a sensible addition and I see there are a number of matches for both already, but I'd like to check (using a region that's already well matched) whether most of these objects tend to be registered as FHRS establishments, or only a few, so that we avoid cluttering the map and skewing the stats. I have some code for this but it may take me a little while to get round to it.
At some point I may think about some sort of two-tier system where only certain tags are assumed to (almost) always have an FHRS match, but others still appear in suggested matches and maybe on the FHRS and OSM map layers.
Thanks for this PR. Although I'm closing it, I'm grateful for the nudge to reconsider the list of tags used for filtering the OSM data.
I've added shop=herbalist
along with a lot of other tag changes in https://github.com/gregrs-uk/fhodot/commit/39e1d2dad079405de66dae4a378a8ea9dc35c518. There weren't any in the well-matched regions I assessed in #13, so I'm assuming that a good proportion of the ones that do exist have a corresponding FHRS establishment.
I haven't added shop=doityourself
as looking at well-matched regions, only 8 out of the 91 shop=doityourself
objects were matched to FHRS establishments, and I don't want to clutter the map too much with objects unlikely to have a match.
Added:
Let me know if you'd like this linted / formatted in any particular way.