[Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names
OSM Volunteer stevea
steveaOSM at softworkers.com
Tue Feb 13 02:20:01 UTC 2018
On Feb 12, 2018, at 6:02 PM, Bernie Connors <bernie.connors at unb.ca> wrote:
> I see the use of "City of" as indicating the official name of a municipality as it is defined in legislation. Here in New Brunswick the Municipalities Act defines the official names of municipalities. Some opt to use "City of ", "Town of ", etc in the Municipalities Act and some don't. But when it comes to names on maps we should be more concerned with toponyms and not official names. The use of "City of ", "Town of ", etc is very rare in toponyms. Here is a query on the Canadian Geographic Names Database searching for the term "of" in the "populated places" category - http://www4.rncan.gc.ca/search-place-names/search?q=of&theme%5B%5D=985&category=O
> I only see two examples that include "City of ", "Town of ", etc across the entire country:
> City of Brant, ON
> Village of Queen Charlotte, BC
Excellent, Bernie: I love the word toponym, it is a good one for a talk forum about OSM. Thank you for those elucidations. I am from outside Canada, though the CGND seems an authoritative source here and we do have others chiming in as I type.
+1, I agree that toponym is an excellent starting point for the value of the name=* key. City of Brant and Village of Queen Charlotte might have those in official_name but check taginfo and dig into this further with more discussion. Discussion is good.
What I meant by "I smell admin_level harmonization" is that as this discussion continues about deleting "Township of" and "Village of" data (and similar) that better admin_level tagging might result. A sort of (trade off?) of "well, let's capture the data we consider deleting by adding them into OSM using OSM methods."
This isn't required, more like a "recycle the scraps on the cutting room floor into nice, correct data." I do that where I can, certainly not always! Great discussion.
More information about the Talk-ca