[Talk-GB] Quarterly Projects Update
colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Fri Apr 3 14:55:53 UTC 2015
So now instead of having two versions of the name (1. according to the
council and 2. according to the sign) we are to have a third version,
according to OSM? I am also thinking of our "conventions" with regard to
punctuation and abbreviations (not to mention capitalisation), which
lead to mappers not copying the sign verbatim into OSM but entering some
kind of normalised version. If the sign is "gospel" we need to stop that
If our rules/algorithms lead to so much discussion, maybe it is time to
tighten up these rules/algorithms, such that they become as objective as
possible, ideally so that anybody applying the same process would come
to the same conclusion.
According to the National Street Gazetteer, the official source of
street names is the local authority in their Local Street Gazetteer
which they have to feed into the NSG. Is this the "other database" to
which you refer?
On 2015-04-03 16:12, John Aldridge wrote:
> On 03/04/2015 14:59, Colin Smale wrote:
>> Why not tag both spelling variants? They are both correct in their own frame of reference. If it differs to what is "on the ground", we can use official_name=* for the name given by the local authority, warts an' all.
> I wouldn't have a problem with this at all, provided the "official" data is licensed in such a way that we can use it.
> As I recall, however, although the OS map is suitably licensed, it is not itself definitive, but is derived (perhaps with errors) from another database which we are not entitled to copy. I don't think there's much value in adding an os_name=* which may differ from both the ground-truth and the definitive data.
>> Even council employees and contractors make mistakes occasionally. Should we be legitimising and propagating manifest errors by putting the errors into OSM?
> Because IMO they're *not* errors in OSM, whose job is to map physical reality, not to be a repository for various geographic information databases. I'm aware that not everyone shares this view.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB