Leeds city-centre footfall data. I would be grateful for copies of the following existing records or datasets for 1 January 2019 to the present, if held.
1. Counter register and location history: counter identifiers, published names, supplier/device identifiers where disclosable, coordinates or mapped positions, and dates each location was in service. Please include any crosswalk between earlier numbered counters (for example, 1–10) and the eight named counters in the revised series.
See attachment titled 'Footfall camera locations'
2. Moves, replacements, and operational changes: recorded dates and reasons for relocations, replacements, repairs, supplier or sensor changes, methodology changes, and material downtime. If exact dates are not held, the closest dated records would be helpful.
See attachment titled 'Moves Replacements and Operational changes'
3. Revisions to the “Revised Weekly Data” series: any change log, correction notice, methodology note, or supplier documentation explaining which dates/counters were revised, why, and whether scaling or correction factors were applied. Please include relevant version or publication dates.
3 of the cameras had a factoring system on them reducing their figures by either 50% or more, due to the camera systems that were originally installed we were not aware until a camera required moving and the highlighted the issue . The Data was revised going all the way back to 30.12.2019. To remain consistent the data was then added to the Data Mill system under a name of Revised Weekly Data to show that this was a change of the data previously uploaded onto the Data Mill System.
The Data Mill still as the original figures leading up to the change, which is named Weekly Data.
A note was added to the Data Mill Page stating - 'We recently became aware that the data, which had been supplied to us by our data supplier, has been incorrect due to the age of the camera system recording the data and the relocation of some cameras. This has resulted in some cameras reporting lower counts, these issues have now been resolved with our data supplier. Please note that this has resulted in the new Revised Weekly Data, with all the correct data, back to 2020'.
4. Week commencing 25 May 2020: the catalogue appears to list an unrevised “Weekly Data 25.05.20 - 31.05.20.csv” while adjacent weeks are labelled “Revised Weekly Data.” Please confirm whether a revised version exists or whether the unrevised file is the only version held, and provide any related explanation or revised file.
This was a typing error and should have read Revised Weekly Data, this as now been changed on the Data Mill System.
5. Map-to-feed crosswalk: the authoritative mapping from each historical map point/numbered counter to the revised feed’s LocationName values and stable device identifiers, including effective dates for name or location changes.
This is a technical question which the system supplier MRI would need to answer should they wish to do so.
6. Count definitions and validation: documentation for InCount, OutCount, ReportCount, and corresponding Factored*Count fields; whether these measure directional passages; how missing hours differ from zero counts; and any available calibration, manual-count validation, or known accuracy limitations.
This is a technical question which the system supplier MRI would need to answer should they wish to do so.
If any information is held by the data supplier or another authority rather than the Council, please identify the organisation and any relevant public documentation or contact route, if known. If part of the request cannot be disclosed, please provide the remainder and explain the basis.
The system supplier is MRI. They can be contacted via their website: MRI OnLocation Footfall Analytics | People Counting
