[Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Rob Nickerson]

>Lloyds and TSB  banks demerged 5 years ago - yet we still have 180
branches with the old name.

We also have 7 mapped as "LLoyds TSB", 5 as "Lloyds TSB Bank", 4 as "Lloyds
TSB Scotland" 3 as (dubious) "Lloyds/TSB", 1 as "LLoyds TSB Bank", 1 as
"Lloyds  TSB" (double space), 1 as "Lloyd's TSB", 1 as "Lloyds TSB Bank
Plc", 1 as "Lloyds TSB Bank PLC" and 1 as "Lloyds-TSB".

But on the plus side... um, no, that's lost on me!

Sigh.

*Rob*


On Mon, 7 May 2018 at 20:27, Brian Prangle <bprangle at gmail.com> wrote:

> The answer to the question I posed originally seems to be either  "never"
> or "immediately". Maplin I understand waiting some more time for the
> liquidation process to complete. For clarity the mechanical edit would be
> shop=vacant and previous_name=  whichever variant of the Toys R us name is
> present; which preserves the shop amenity  with a change of use and
> preserves the "landmark" data, which I hope answers some of the concerns
> raised so far. Maintaining map data surely has to be a mix of automation
> and hand-crafted, not a zealot position of one to the exclusion of the
> other. If we know data to be inaccurate and there is an easy fix surely
> we're bounden to users of our map to make it the best we can. If we adopt
> Frederick's position(which I see, rightly or wrongly, as a quest for
> ideological purity) we put community  before users, when I see it has to be
> a balance between the two. What's the point of  building a map if we don't
> make it as accurate and complete as possible,* as soon as possible*?
> Otherwise it's in danger of becoming purely a thing of beauty hand-crafted
> by dedicated hobbyists, with  no thought for all those who have decided to
> use our map.
>
> How long should we wait for a mapper to verify something that's changed?
> Lloyds and TSB  banks demerged 5 years ago - yet we still have 180 branches
> with the old name. Likewise the Territorial Army changed name 6 years ago
> and we still have 27 instances of the old name. So how about  volunteers
> for a campaign to contact local mappers and gently encourage them to update
> the map?
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>
>
> On 5 May 2018 at 11:57, Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And for the balance: I disagree with Frederik on this one.
>>
>> If we know the map is wrong we should fix it. We should not leave it just
>> because it may encourage others to fix it and then go on to do other local
>> edits.
>>
>> Frederik's view is that a crap map encourages more people to edit. I'm
>> not convinced. A crap map could also put people off - "why bother, OSM is
>> so far behind, I'll contribute to/just use Google maps instead"
>>
>> I agree that a *blank* map encourages new mappers, but that was 10 years
>> ago! Less convinced that an out of date map does. At least not with our
>> current homepage or if we do get a new mapper its most likely to be a
>> single edit (maybe with MapsMe) rather than a new prolific mapper.
>>
>> So I'm happy with this mechanical edit (full removal preferred, but
>> addition of disussed ok too).
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> P.s. Do we still have cases of Lloyds TSB in OSM?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20180507/08cb9904/attachment-0001.html>