[Talk-us] User adding many Safeway grocery stores, with ref number in name
toby.murray at gmail.com
Sun Jan 8 18:31:10 GMT 2012
I actually contacted this person a while ago and kind of forgot to
follow up. I suggested putting the store number in the ref tag. Part
of his response:
"Hi, I am a Vons employe and as apart of my training we have been told
to call all stores as by their proper name like in Brea (the store I
work at) Our store is called Vons 2326. If you look at the whole edit
store there is name Vons 2626 and under ref. is Safeway 2326 (safeway
is our perant company). The source I am using is each store's
He has done good work mapping several Safeway subsidiaries throughout
the US. But yeah I agree the store number should go in the ref tag. We
don't really care about internal Safeway naming conventions... we care
about how that data fits into OUR data model.
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Richard Weait <richard at weait.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Mike N <niceman at att.net> wrote:
>> On 1/8/2012 7:49 AM, Josh Doe wrote:
>>> Seems all recent edits have been just adding Safeway stores:
>>> The edits seem good (adding building outlines), though I'm not sure
>>> about putting the store number in the name, I've always put that in the
>>> ref tag. What do you think, should we ask the user to change this?
>> I could see both sides of this - receipts are likely printed "Welcome to
>> Safeway #xxx", and so the map would appear correct and contain additional
>> detail. The disadvantage is that an exact match search for "Safeway" would
>> fail, depending on the search algorithm in use. It's not clear to me how
>> the ref field would be used in conjunction with buildings.
> I see the appeal of the store number in the name if you are a Safeway
> insider. As an average mapper (or map consumer) that data seems
> unmaintainable. I'd have to zip inside each store and find the store
> number on a receipt or a plaque on the wall somewhere. I expect that
> fast food chains and other chains have store numbers as well, or
> ownership information that is more-correct from a legal point of view.
> I like the idea of having that data in OSM but I don't think that it
> belongs in the name tag. ref, perhaps or store:ref or something like
> that seems a much better place for it. Safeway insiders can still
> choose to render or search on the combined terms.
> Josh, could you suggest that the contributor use additional tags please?
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Talk-us