[Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - handling already-tagged fixmes

[Sam Larsen]

With all this talk of changing street names, can i just remind you to make sure 
that if you are changing street names that there are no addresses liked to that 
street.  I have added many addresses linked to streets using Karlsruhe schema 
(without relations) - i guess this is where relations would help.  I just did it 
the way the germans did it - they seem to know what they are doing.  If there 
are, either change them also, or add a fixme tag or something.

Thanks,
Sam


----- Original Message ----
> From: Robert Scott <lists at humanleg.org.uk>
> To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
> Sent: Wed, 14 July, 2010 11:08:03
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - handling 
>already-tagged fixmes
> 
> On Wednesday 14 July 2010, Ed Avis wrote:
> > Thanks for getting the OS  Locator tiles updating again.  Could I make a 
>feature
> >  request?
> > 
> > Often when OS and OSM disagree I will tag this in the  OSM database with a 
>note
> > such as
> > 
> >      FIXME=Check name - OSM has Marefield Gardens, OS has Maresfield Gardens
> > 
> > Usually I will also delete the name= tag, so that the street shows up  in 
>noname
> > checks to be resurveyed (and because the correct name is  unknown).
> > 
> > It would be useful for these already-looked-at cases  to be excluded from 
the
> > Locator check, since they are being flagged  separately by noname checks.  I 
>know
> > this was briefly discussed  earlier on the list.
> > 
> > We could spend all month discussing a  suitably elaborate tagging scheme of
> >  fixme:name:OS_OpenData_Locator:resurvey=yes;osm_value=x;os_value=y.   
>However,
> > I propose not inventing any new tagging for this.  Rather,  look to see if 
>the
> > OS name is mentioned as a substring in one of the tag  values.  That would 
>show
> > that somebody at least is aware of it, and  would catch various tagging 
>schemes
> > including the FIXME one I've been  using.
> 
> I really think this is exactly the sort of thing that does not  belong in the 
>OSM database, which is why I am working on a separate but  connected database of 
>manually overridable match states. Development isn't as  fast as I'd like it to 
>be due to work constraints and my home processing power  being limited (testing 
>can take a  while).
> 
> 
> robert.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB  mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>