[Talk-us] Abbreviation Police

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:56:51 -0700, Alan Mintz wrote:

> Yes. Last time, a couple of us (or maybe just me - I forget) argued that
> it was OK to use common abbreviations for some well-known street types -
> at least St, Ave, Blvd, Pl, etc. - but the opposition was significant,
> and no change could be agreed upon. (OT - I wish that recognition of
> similar opposition in the tiger tag removal were given the same weight)

On the other hand, it's easier to handle non-abbreviated words in an 
automated fashion and the general global consensus has been for a long 
time now that abbreviations complicate things unnecessarily.  Meanwhile, 
it has been observed on more than one occasion that the quality of the 
data imported by TIGER is nearly or entirely worse than a blank map.

>>Or do people here really think everything should be expand to the
>>fullest.
> 
> Trying to keep the discussion focused, I didn't write about all the
> places where abbreviations _are_ actually being widely used,
> theoretically against policy, like road networks, bike networks, pretty
> much any import with its own namespace, hgv, psv, source, etc.

Because in the cases key names, the meaning is unique and unambiguous, 
and in the case of network symbols, closely following national or 
international standards for those symbols.