[Talk-GB] Housing Development Names

[Andy Robinson]

Kev,

 

What I’ve done a couple of times is to create a way encompassing the development and adding all the relevant details to that. As extra tags along with landuse=residential usually. I often find that if it’s a one road affair the new name for the road which comes along late in the development is completely different from the name developer gave the site when they started construction.

 

Like you, I hate to dump data when you know it is factually correct, at least from some prior period of time.

 

Cheers

Andy

 

 

From: Kev js1982 [mailto:osm at kevswindells.eu] 
Sent: 08 June 2011 21:39
To: OSM - Talk GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] Housing Development Names

 

Looking at the cyclemap to see if I had made all the changes I thought I had I noticed the very prominent Knightshayes text on the map
http://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=13 <http://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=13&lat=52.92356&lon=-1.12127&layers=B0> &lat=52.92356&lon=-1.12127&layers=B0

This is a new housing development which when I added it to the map was still under construction but signed in lots of places though the development and neighbouring areas - however we are now a few years on and all the signs are gone and all the properties are occupied.  

The current tagging is
is_in:Gamston, West Bridgford
place:suburb
name:Knightshayes
landuse:residential

The question is what should I do with it now?

1) Remove as it's no longer signed on the ground
2) Downgrade it to some other tagging for historic mapping
3) Leave it as it is and raise a bug report on OpenCycleMap to get that sort of place less prominent on the map
4) Change my tagging as it's wrong (the development is a "suburb" of the village of Gamston, itself a suburb of the town of West Bridgford which is effectively a suburb of the city of Nottingham (but it's not within Nottingham City Council area, it's Rushcliffe Borough/Nottinghamshire County council here) so the tagging should really reflect it's true place in that hierarchy.  

My inclination would be 2) - I don't like the idea or removing data which was collected on the ground but it doesn't feel like it should be on the map at all for general use. It's very much like the 1970s development my parents live on - a few people do know the name of that development but in reality most people would never have heard of it - the council treat it as being part of the neighbouring estate (which only the council and local bus operator seam to know about!), the Royal Mail and many other people assume that the whole estate itself are part of a much larger suburb.  Certainly none of the commercial maps I have seen over the years mentioned it's development name (well apart from the really old ones which show the sports ground that gave it it's name, but they don't have the roads).

Kev.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20110608/a9ddf6b3/attachment-0001.html>