Proposal talk:Ref:GB:uprn/Archive 1
< Proposal talk:Ref:GB:uprn(Redirected from Talk:Proposed features/ref:GB:uprn/Archive 1)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Privacy and individual plots?
I wonder if that identifier is assigned to private property, and if the acceptance of the identifier would lead to mapping of individual plots of private residences. That is so far discouraged in OSM. --Polarbear w (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand the comment here as we already map individual addresses in many places, and of course the OS had a map of them all and the royal mail has the PAF. Nevertheless I think the comment is going beyond the scope of this page which is focused on selecting an agreed tag for those who do want to map UPRNs. --RobJN (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- As long as the UPRN is used on a node like a postal address, I see no problem at all. I see a problem when mappers draw individual polygons of private plots; the proposal should discourage this. --Polarbear w (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is just nonsense. INSPIRE data already (not fully open) provide information on the bounds of property parcels. Information on property parcels which is held in the public registry (including owner, but not necessarily beneficial owner) can be obtained for a fee from the Land Registry. Such information is necessary for all sorts of everyday legal activities. All that is intended with OSM is to store a UPRN which facilitates unambigous identification of a building, not plots or cadastral parcels. It is anticipated that in the near future citizens may need to know the UPRN of their house etc for certain types of transactions with goverment, local government and utility companies (by extension one might expect insurance companies and banks to soon require this type of dcocumentation). If you wish to look at how complex plots can get take a look at the cadastral data on the Polish Geoportal. I have already created a mashup of UPRNs, addresses & OSM data , but it is partial because it relies on particular matching techniques which can only be applied to a subset of objects. SK53 (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- (1) To RobJN: You seem to assume that just because someone wants to map something, they can. That is not the case. For the sake of argument, you couldn't create a page to discuss how to map residents' names to buildings and then when someone questions the idea, respond with "uh, sorry, this page is just for discussing HOW we map residents' names, not IF". I hope that is clear. (2) To SK53: Please don't say "This is just nonsense" if someone has a legitimate concern, even if you don't agree! Also (regarding what you say about INSPIRE), it is very much possible that some information is publicly available and still not suitable for inclusion into OSM on privacy grounds - again, take the list of names of people living at an address, which at least in my country is available from the government but still we wouldn't want to include that into OSM. (3) To Polarbear: As far as I understood, these UPRNs only have a point coordinate and, as RobJN says, will apply to a building (something we already map) and not a plot or parcel (something we usually don't map). Hence, even if people were tempted to add something to the map to "anchor" the UPRN to, it would be a building and not a piece of land. Hence I think your concern is unfounded, and while "discouraging the drawing of private plots of land" wouldn't hurt this proposal, I don't think it is necessary. --Woodpeck (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Polarbear argues that the proposal should discourage mappers from drawing polygons of private plots. That argument is indeed nonsense as we already have thousands of such polygons, in the UK alone. Your comment about named individuals appears to be a straw man. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- (1) To RobJN: You seem to assume that just because someone wants to map something, they can. That is not the case. For the sake of argument, you couldn't create a page to discuss how to map residents' names to buildings and then when someone questions the idea, respond with "uh, sorry, this page is just for discussing HOW we map residents' names, not IF". I hope that is clear. (2) To SK53: Please don't say "This is just nonsense" if someone has a legitimate concern, even if you don't agree! Also (regarding what you say about INSPIRE), it is very much possible that some information is publicly available and still not suitable for inclusion into OSM on privacy grounds - again, take the list of names of people living at an address, which at least in my country is available from the government but still we wouldn't want to include that into OSM. (3) To Polarbear: As far as I understood, these UPRNs only have a point coordinate and, as RobJN says, will apply to a building (something we already map) and not a plot or parcel (something we usually don't map). Hence, even if people were tempted to add something to the map to "anchor" the UPRN to, it would be a building and not a piece of land. Hence I think your concern is unfounded, and while "discouraging the drawing of private plots of land" wouldn't hurt this proposal, I don't think it is necessary. --Woodpeck (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is just nonsense. INSPIRE data already (not fully open) provide information on the bounds of property parcels. Information on property parcels which is held in the public registry (including owner, but not necessarily beneficial owner) can be obtained for a fee from the Land Registry. Such information is necessary for all sorts of everyday legal activities. All that is intended with OSM is to store a UPRN which facilitates unambigous identification of a building, not plots or cadastral parcels. It is anticipated that in the near future citizens may need to know the UPRN of their house etc for certain types of transactions with goverment, local government and utility companies (by extension one might expect insurance companies and banks to soon require this type of dcocumentation). If you wish to look at how complex plots can get take a look at the cadastral data on the Polish Geoportal. I have already created a mashup of UPRNs, addresses & OSM data , but it is partial because it relies on particular matching techniques which can only be applied to a subset of objects. SK53 (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- As long as the UPRN is used on a node like a postal address, I see no problem at all. I see a problem when mappers draw individual polygons of private plots; the proposal should discourage this. --Polarbear w (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Could someone clearly explain why mapping plots (which are available in Mastermap and out-of-copyright 1:1250 and 1:2500 maps on the National Library of Scotland website, including England and Wales) is a legitimate privacy issue? --Andrew (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- At the risk of venturing offtopic from this discussion, where are you seeing plot information (other than special cases like "XYZ Castle") in OOC NLS maps? SomeoneElse (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)