[talk-ph] Fwd: Road name suffixes again

Sat Feb 20 09:46:54 UTC 2021

Hi,

>From my distant perspective it would be negligent to omit the carriageway
suffix in OSM.  It's quite common here (AU) to have the same name (e.g.
historically significant local identity)  on different carriageways with
different suffixes.

I just did a scan through my records and photos (all provincial - Alaminos,
Pangisinan) and the LGO street maps have suffixes, and all my photo records
of street signs have suffixes bar one in an outer barangay. I put that one
down to laziness, and laziness shouldn't follow laziness...

Of course the suffix could be invented, it really has to come from the LGO
records.

Cheers
Glen Scott

On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 at 16:09, Jherome Miguel <jheromemiguel at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> --TagaSanPedroAko
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Jherome Miguel <jheromemiguel at gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 1:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [talk-ph] Road name suffixes again
> To: Erwin Olario <govvin at gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 12:29 PM Erwin Olario, <govvin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The available imagery in that area is very current, from January to
>> February 2021. Street signs are clearly visible in the photos, as can be
>> seen in this photo example [1] from the sequences contributed by the user
>> mdgabriel [2].
>>
>
> Ah. It's possible you've overlooked some of the photos showing new blue
> signs DPWH has installed along Maginhawa, Kalayaan and V. Luna.
>
>>
>> Using "117 Maginhawa, Diliman, Quezon City 1101" as an address doesn't
>> appear problematic for me.  I am certain that if it's real, and I post
>> something to it, it will reach its destination.
>>
>
>> "Weird" is a subjective term, that's why the community follows
>> conventions. Is it not the current Philippine convention to map the full
>> names as used in physical street signs, because that's publicly verifiable?
>>
>
> I see. It could be fine for navigation, but perhaps not for sending mail.
> Nevertheless, bare names are somewhat ambiguous, except perhaps for things
> like EDSA (the short name is more recognizable than its full name, and
> address use the short form too). If the address uses the full form, then
> the facing street should be using that name too. Looks like we've forgot
> OSM is not just a roadmap; it's a database too.
>
> Consistency is also important, so even if one sign omits the affix and the
> others include it, the name should be consistent throughout the section
> where the name applies
>
>
>>
>> With a few exceptions, If in official documents, a highway is referred to
>> as "XYZ Street" but the posted street signs only says "Xyz", isn't it also
>> the convention to use name="Xyz" + official_name="XYZ Street" ?
>>
>
> I would better stick on full names, with possible exceptions (such as
> EDSA). We should look on other verifiable sources beyond street signs on
> the corner (it's not uncommon some LGUs, HOAs or land developers may decide
> to deliberately omit suffixes as a cost-saving measure, or signs are
> inconsistent). Again, business signage, calling cards, ads, and project
> signs are verifiable sources as well. Even the home address found in mail
> can be a source as well. Even if the street sign says just plain "xyz", the
> addresses of businesses/homes along the way will still be generally using
> the full form in address.
>
>>
>>
>> [1]: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/RER3VDfbMGxeZCCwZBE95V
>> [2]:
>> https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/mdgabriel?lat=14.968796535597093&lng=121.02947521607416&z=7.810609798421078
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> » email: erwin@ <erwin at ngnuity.net>*n**gnu**it**y**.xyz*
>> <http://ngnuity.net/> | govvin at gmail.com
>> » mobile: https://t.me/GOwin
>> » OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93
>> D56B
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 9:55 AM Jherome Miguel <jheromemiguel at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm, looks like you've missing the point that you should consider
>>> business signage, calling cards and things as valid sources as well. Don't
>>> just rely too much on the blue and white street sign in the corner. Did you
>>> saw anything like that?
>>>
>>> If "weird" is not the best way to describe the problem of using bare
>>> names, I can better say bare names don't fit well with addresses. The
>>> street signs may don't have the suffix, but the other signs plus common
>>> sense will tell. Would an example "117 Maginhawa" be a good address to send
>>> mail? I'll say no.
>>>
>>> Again, when is the imagery dated?
>>>
>>> --TagaSanPedroAko
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 9:21 AM Erwin Olario, <govvin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The current street-level imagery from Mapillary in the area shows no
>>>> "street" suffixes on the street signs.  Imagery, and local knowledge is the
>>>> basis for that particular edit.
>>>>
>>>> The number one rule for mappers in OpenStreetMap is to map what's on
>>>> the ground. Adding "street" because it looks weird does not follow the
>>>> on-the-ground rule.
>>>>
>>>> /Erwin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>>> » email: erwin@ <erwin at ngnuity.net>*n**gnu**it**y**.xyz*
>>>> <http://ngnuity.net/> | govvin at gmail.com
>>>> » mobile: https://t.me/GOwin
>>>> » OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93
>>>> D56B
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 7:42 AM Jherome Miguel <jheromemiguel at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the discussion at
>>>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/98219661, I think we should
>>>>> review our existing convention on naming streets, especially those with the
>>>>> "Street" suffix, and and handling of street with official signs that omit
>>>>> the suffixes. Common OSM practice on street names is to use full names, but
>>>>> existing PH convention somewhat encourages dropping of suffixes regardless
>>>>> of what signs say, especially for inner streets, just like some other road
>>>>> maps in the Philippines (and even signs) do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some important arguments are:
>>>>>
>>>>> - OSM is also a database and not just a mere road map (and complete
>>>>> data is important). Road maps may use common short forms of full road names
>>>>> for easy recognition, but OSM is far more than those. Maps that use OSM
>>>>> data have many choices on how to handle road names: use the full name, use
>>>>> abbreviations, or just use the bare name. By eliminating it, important info
>>>>> is lost.
>>>>> - Using bare road names looks plain weird, especially for addresses
>>>>> (unless we're one of the countries where omitting affixes on most street
>>>>> names is the norm in maps, signs, and addresses). Ads, business signs, and
>>>>> things should also be considered as sources, not just the sign at the
>>>>> street corner. Official road signs may not be consistent in how the name is
>>>>> written, and the name posted in business addresses may be far better in
>>>>> telling the name of the road in question.
>>>>> - The temptation by some mappers to abbreviate suffixes is not a
>>>>> sufficient reason to eliminate these info from road names.
>>>>>
>>>>> --TagaSanPedroAko
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> talk-ph mailing list
>>>>> talk-ph at openstreetmap.org
>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/attachments/20210220/2e191c43/attachment-0001.htm>