[Talk-us] Abbreviation Police
Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.Net
Sun Aug 8 02:28:26 BST 2010
At 2010-08-07 12:59, Paul Johnson wrote:
>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.
People can observe all they want - it doesn't make them right, and this
particular observation would be absurd, not to mention offensive to those
that worked on it!
I wouldn't have even considered working on the project without the presence
of the TIGER (or some other centerline) import. It's almost always far more
work creating roads than fixing them. I know this from experience drawing
new developments, some rather large, as well as aligning and verifying
against photos thousands of existing streets over thousands of square miles
of urban, suburban, and rural southern CA.
> >>Or do people here really think everything should be expand to the
> > 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.
I'm talking about values, not just keys. I wrote in the original thread
that making a small handful of common, unambiguous, abbreviations for
street types acceptable would cover a large percentage of the cases. It is
particularly useful and unambiguous if we separate them out into their own
tag (which is why this came up again). Lastly, it matches the overwhelming
majority of print usage and signage.
Alan Mintz <Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.net>
More information about the Talk-us