search

whosonfirst-data / whosonfirst-data-postalcode-gb

Who's On First postal code data for GB
https://whosonfirst.mapzen.com
Other
2 stars 2 forks source link

Sync with May 2020 ONS Postcode Directory #5

Closed tomtaylor closed 4 years ago

tomtaylor commented 4 years ago

89970 features updated. 3189 new features created.

The updated features contain some cessations but are mostly centroids that have moved a small distance. I haven't re-pip'd existing the records as it seems unlikely the postcodes will have moved very far.

tomtaylor commented 4 years ago

cc: @stepps00

thisisaaronland commented 4 years ago

Can I interest you in writing a blog post about this work?

tomtaylor commented 4 years ago

Can I interest you in writing a blog post about this work?

Sure! I'll try and draft something up...

stepps00 commented 4 years ago

Thanks @tomtaylor - I'm pulling down the changes to inspect the changes locally.

Did you take the same approach in this PR as you did with the work in https://github.com/whosonfirst-data/whosonfirst-data-postalcode-gb/pull/4? Assuming the workflows are the same, this should be a quick merge.

stepps00 commented 4 years ago

An example of a new record being added in this PR:

{
  "id": 1713327887,
  "type": "Feature",
  "properties": {
    "edtf:cessation": "uuuu",
    "edtf:inception": "2020-04-01",
    "geom:area": 0,
    "geom:bbox": "-0.538962,53.173228,-0.538962,53.173228",
    "geom:latitude": 53.173228,
    "geom:longitude": -0.538962,
    "iso:country": "GB",
    "mz:hierarchy_label": 1,
    "mz:is_current": 1,
    "os:country_code": "E92000001",
    "os:county_code": "E10000019",
    "os:district_code": "E07000139",
    "os:positional_quality_indicator": "5",
    "os:region_code": "E12000004",
    "src:geom": "os",
    "wof:belongsto": [
      85633159, 
      1360699067, 
      404445475, 
      1360759405, 
      404227469, 
      1360698571
    ],
    "wof:breaches": [],
    "wof:country": "GB",
    "wof:created": 1595735505,
    "wof:geomhash": "1bf7e8ac3848bc04c5d8d076b5dd8122",
    "wof:hierarchy": [
      {
        "country_id": 85633159,
        "county_id": 1360699067,
        "localadmin_id": 404445475,
        "locality_id": 1360759405,
        "macroregion_id": 404227469,
        "region_id": 1360698571
      }
    ],
    "wof:id": 1713327887,
    "wof:lastmodified": 1595753346,
    "wof:name": "LN5 9ZD",
    "wof:parent_id": -1,
    "wof:placetype": "postalcode",
    "wof:repo": "whosonfirst-data-postalcode-gb",
    "wof:superseded_by": [],
    "wof:supersedes": [],
    "wof:tags": []
  },
  "bbox": [
    -0.538962, 
    53.173228, 
    -0.538962, 
    53.173228
  ],
  "geometry": {"coordinates":[-0.538962,53.173228],"type":"Point"}
}

Overall, I don't see any issues that would prevent this from being merged.. just a few questions/comments, some of which were already clarified in #4.. but I want to confirm.

tomtaylor commented 4 years ago
  • The formatting/spacing seems similar to the edits in #4, which differ a bit from the Python wof-exportify tool, and come from the Go versions of this tool. Was the Go export tool run against each new/edited record in this PR?

That's right - all these changes are generated using wof-sync-os-postcodes, which uses the Go export/format libraries.

  • The wof:id integers on new records look like they're sourced from Brooklyn Integers.. is that true?

That's right - I updated wof-sync-os-postcodes to only use Brooklyn integers, as per the feedback on #4.

  • I don't think re-PIPing these records is a requirement to get this merged.. but curious if you think this would be a useful followup.

I think the centroids have typically moved an incredibly small amount, and it's unlikely many records have moved enough to change the hierarchy. But it can't hurt! It's just a flag on wof-sync-os-postcodes now. Happy to follow up with another PR.

stepps00 commented 4 years ago

I think the centroids have typically moved an incredibly small amount, and it's unlikely many records have moved enough to change the hierarchy. But it can't hurt! It's just a flag on wof-sync-os-postcodes now. Happy to follow up with another PR.

I think it would be helpful for these new records to gain updated hierarchies when applicable, but more importantly, PIPing these records would give these records new wof:parent_id values.

This looks good to me -- unless there is anything else to add, I'll get this merged today. Thanks for the contribution!

tomtaylor commented 4 years ago

No problem, thanks for reviewing!

stepps00 commented 4 years ago

Paging @nvkelso - lots of great updates to the GB postalcodes here.

stepps00 commented 4 years ago

I gave the changes another look and I think this is ready to ship. I'll add a follow-up issue to the main wof-data repo to track PIP updates to these records and link this PR.

Thanks again @tomtaylor

missinglink commented 3 years ago

Hi guys, the May 2021 ONS file came out recently, is it relatively easier to sync the new files since this PR landed? If so, would it be worth updating?

https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/datasets/7b543e410eb74fa6a4690346222782fc/about