[OSM-talk] NoName

[Gregory]

If we don't want to use a new key(I don't understand why not), how about
'note=no_name'?
I'm not sure how right it is to do so, but I write comments in 'note=' that
will help people looking at the data (editing it, thinking it needs to be
corrected, etc.). Sometimes if my comment is more suitable for people using
the map I write it in 'description=' (I think Freemap might use that on
footpaths). I don't expect my comments to get used by a script as the value
doesn't conform to any standard (I use it to comment on odd things after
all), but for some values it could do.

Secondly, why do we have such a long discussion on this?
I think it is clear (by how long the debate(s) have gone on for) that doing
nothing is not suitable. We just need something to become standard. Under
the OSM model the way to do that is for something to use it (cloudmade just
choose something and either don't render it orange on your noname map, or
render it in another style), or for it to be proposed and voted and go on
map features (but that is longer).

I agree with the idea that as soon as I'm responsible for naming roads, I'm
going to make one be 'no name'.

With bad signage, the important thing is it gets documented somehow (OSM is
flexible for having more data rather than less, 'note=The signs says foo but
a vandal changed it and the council says bar').
If someone knows a road has a name, even though it has no sign, and is not
rendered on the nonames map(why would they look at that when they know it
has a name), they are going to go in and add the name anyway (hopefully
deleting the noname tag).
If someone is a user of the maps, and sees loads of roads in their
aerial-covered town labelled "FIXME", then surley that is far worse than
them saying OSM doesn't have the name of my road.


2008/9/15 Bob Jonkman <bjonkman at sobac.com>

> Is there a tag for "signage=false"?  That would be a good way of
> differentiating a road with no name from one that just doesn't have
> signage for the name.  Perhaps "signage=true/false" could go under
> Accessories?
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tags#Accessories
>
> --Bob.
>
>
> >>> 14 Sep 2008 23:22  DavidD <thewinch at gmail.com>  >>>
>
> > 2008/9/14 sergio sevillano <sergiosevillano.mail at gmail.com>:
> >
> > > some times a way has no marked name but has one, maybe someone
> > > behind you can find the name (local authorities, local knowledge, or
> > > they just repair the signal....)
> >
> > The noname map could use a different highlight for roads that have
> > been tagged as not having a name. Then someone with local knowledge of
> > an unsigned road would see it wasn't named. While anyone thinking of
> > doing a survey would be warned the road name isn't obvious on the
> > ground.
> >
> > Tagging something as having no name when it doesn't have a sign might
> > not be strictly correct but I think it would do the job.
> >
> > --
> > DavidD
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
Gregory
nomoregrapes at gmail.com
http://www.livingwithdragons.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20080916/fcff69e6/attachment.html>