[Talk-us] Street Naming Conventions

Matthias Julius lists at julius-net.net
Fri Apr 9 19:05:02 BST 2010

andrzej zaborowski <balrogg at gmail.com> writes:

> On 9 April 2010 15:06, Matthias Julius <lists at julius-net.net> wrote:
>> Val Kartchner <val42k at gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 12:23 -0400, Richard Welty wrote:
>>>> i don't think anyone would argue with this. it's why having a bot
>>>> rampage through
>>>> "fixing" things is probably a Real Bad Idea unless it's extremely well
>>>> thought out
>>>> and comprehensively tested beforehand.
>>> While I didn't like what the bot was doing (at the time),
>> What was the bot doing?
>>> I don't thing "rampage" is the correct word to use.  That implies
>>> malice, which wasn't what was attempted.  However, it did have a
>>> beneficial side effect: this topic.  ;-)
>> In the special case of TIGER data there is a tag
>> tiger:name_type=Rd|Ct|Dr|...
>> I would have thought it should be fairly save to reconstruct the name
>> from the tiger:name_* tags while expanding tiger:name_type - IF the
>> name is still the original one.
> Except for a few caveats the bot follows the TIGER documentation and
> expands everything listed there (taking into account the suffix/prefix
> requirements), it only touches name and name_1, 2 and so on, leaving
> alone other tags.  I did a dry run on a piece of Canada and the
> ruleset applies pretty well there too, the streets there were from
> Geobase.

But, I think it is probably safer to not parse the name and
instead reassemble the name from the (expanded) tiger:name_* tags


More information about the Talk-us mailing list