[OSM-talk] SteveC should decide

Russ Nelson nelson at crynwr.com
Sun Oct 4 05:44:35 BST 2009

Andrew Errington writes:
 > 1) The street has no name (and you might hum a tune by U2)
 > 2) The street has a name but it has not been recorded
 > Either way, it doesn't matter.

Errrr, no, it really does matter.

 > If I am a map user then I can not intuit whether the name is missing, or
 > there just isn't one.  If there should be a name it's too bad.  I can't do
 > anything about it.  In particular, if it's a street I'm looking for then I
 > will be frustrated if I later learn that the unnamed street was the one I
 > wanted, but again, it's too bad.

There's another case you haven't considered.  If you're looking at OSM
and you see a street with no name, then as you're driving down the
street, in your case 1, you would expect to see a street without
street signs, but in case 2, you wouldn't know whether to expect a
street sign or not.

 > If I am a map maker then I know whether or not the street has a name,
 > because I've been there and seen it.  I can look at the map and see that
 > this street has no name, but I know that it does.  So I will edit the data
 > to make it right.  This also covers the case where the name is wrong, or
 > misspelled.

There's another case you haven't considered.  If you are a map maker
and are looking at OSM data and see no name, then you don't know if
that street sign needs to be added or if it's simply missing.  If the
former, then it's worth a jaunt out to the road to fix it.  If the
former, then it's NOT worth a jaunt out there.

So, it makes sense for both a map maker AND a map user to use noname=yes.

 > I don't expect to extinguish the noname debate with my argument,

Me neither.

--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241    
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog       

More information about the talk mailing list