[Rebuild] Community feedback required - significance of word reversal in names
inas66+osm at gmail.com
Mon May 7 23:12:23 BST 2012
Since there is no clear preference for the word order, then wouldn't
simply reverting the order change be the best way?
After all if the change isn't significant it can't hurt to change it back.
On May 8, 2012 7:45 AM, "Dermot McNally" <dermotm at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
> Over the long weekend I've done some hacking on the remaining failing
> test cases. I concentrated on the quite-a-few cases where the tests
> expect certain equivalent stings (mostly due to abbreviation) to be
> treated as insignificantly different to each other. I've been able to
> fix many of the failures and, subject to some conferring with Matt, I
> think I can fix the test too.
> There is one single test case that has been placed in the "needs clarity"
> Its presence here indicates uncertainty that a community consensus
> exists that the behaviour required by the test is correct. Having
> looked at the test, I'm pretty sure I can make it pass, but it's best
> to obtain community consensus first. The case is simple enough and
> doesn't require ruby skills to understand. The test case takes an
> instance of a Russian language street name, first added by an agreeing
> mapper, then the words reversed by a non-agreeing mapper:
> Original name: ул. Гая
> Reversed version: Гая ул.
> Aside: both version are abbreviated.
> It turns out that "ул." is Russian for "street" (or similar), and that
> there is no strong convention in Russian concerning the better order
> in which to write names of this sort. The test as written contends
> that the change made by the non-agreeing mapper is not significant.
> I tend to agree that the change isn't significant. Likewise I'm not
> aware of other languages in which it would be a significant change to
> reverse the word order of a 2-word string.
> My proposed measure to fix this test is to allow 2-word strings that
> differ in only word order (allowing for equivalence of abbreviated
> versions etc.) to be considered not significantly changed. I request
> your opinions to help me decide whether this is a reasonable thing to
> do (either for this specific example or for other similar cases). _If_
> you believe that this case is safe but others not, please identify a
> counter-example (this can itself, if the community agrees, be turned
> into a test).
> I will raise this case at LWG tomorrow, but for cases like this LWG
> always prefers to go with community consensus. So let's have some!
> Igaühel on siin oma laul
> ja ma oma ei leiagi üles
> Rebuild mailing list
> Rebuild at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rebuild