[Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Thanks, Tod.

BTW, I believe the "official_name" for all California counties is now
in the format "County of Los Angeles", right? This shouldn't be used
for the "name=" since almost everyone still puts the County last (e.g.
"Los Angeles County") in common usage, but official documents will use
the other way with "of" in the middle.

Joseph Eisenberg

On 12/28/19, Tod Fitch <tod at fitchfamily.org> wrote:
> Based on this discussion and my own checking to see what search engines are
> doing with the data, I think it would be okay to move the alt_name tag value
> to be a short_name value for the counties in California and Arizona where
> the current alt_name tag is the same string as the name but without a “
> County” suffix. For example:
>
> alt_name=“Los Angeles”
> name=“Los Angeles County”
>
> Changed to
>
> name=“Los Angeles County”
> short_name=“Los Angeles”
>
> From my side this is now just a desire to be logical and consistent (not
> always a trait seen in OSM tagging). My initial annoyance has been dealt
> with on my topo map rendering by creating a Postgresql function that, among
> other things, will ignore alt_name values if they fit the above criteria. As
> noted by Joseph Eisenberg, the alt_name/short_name value could probably be
> dropped in these cases but I suspect that will get more push back than
> changing the tag.
>
> — Tod
>
>> On Dec 27, 2019, at 7:21 PM, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> It's not necessary to add an alternative like "Josephine" if the name=
>> is already "Josephine County" because geocoding and search application
>> already know to search for part of a name.
>>
>> For example this search already finds the "Josephine County"
>> administrative boundary as the first result:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Josephine - and there is no
>> short alt_name or short_name.
>>
>> So I think there is no reason to have this information duplicated if
>> we are just worried about search.
>>
>> -Joseph Eisenberg
>>
>> On 12/27/19, stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:
>>> I truly love the level of detail we get "coming out of the woodwork" so
>>> that
>>> we may have excellent real-life examples to share with one another (and
>>> +1
>>> to one another, too!)
>>>
>>> To be brief about it (rare for me, I endeavor to get better):  good
>>> examples, discussion / dialog and sharing our real-world experiences and
>>> knowledge is only going to help things.  If somebody reading now has a
>>> more-concrete understanding of differences between old-, alt-,
>>> official-,
>>> and so on, hooray.  If such sharper focus finds its way into a
>>> more-enlightened sentence or paragraph in a wiki, great.
>>>
>>> Chip, chip, chipping away at it (are all of us),
>>> SteveA
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>