[OSM-talk] Fixing Starbucks Wikipedia Tags (Was Nominatim Weakness)

Clifford Snow clifford at snowandsnow.us
Thu Jan 21 21:44:52 UTC 2016


On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 9:27 AM, JB <jbosm at mailoo.org> wrote:

> Just saying that I'm impressed how much people can write about that
> specific private company. Are there some lobbyists hidden somewhere out
> there? Will next month be the same with McDonald's or Burger King?


I took on the Starbucks issue after it was used as an example of
Nomimatim's listing locations no where near the bbox. Living in Seattle
it's hard not be impacted by Starbucks. Other than interacting with their
barista's I don't know anyone nor do I have any connection with the
corporation. I did try to get them to give me a list of their location to
add to OSM. I'm still waiting for them to get back to me. FYI - Seattle has
many coffee shops far superior to Starbucks.

The issue is partly a tagging problem. People were adding a wikipedia link
to the main Starbucks article. That caused Nominatim to include them in a
search. When we are done cleaning up Starbucks, we'll still have at least
one Starbucks with a wikipedia link, the original store. That should cause
Nominatim to display it first. Personally I don't think that is correct. I
still believe that Nominatim should give back results based on bbox
regardless of wikipedia for certain features. In this case, amenity=cafe.
We still owe it to the developers of Nominatim to tag correctly. We
shouldn't complain if we don't follow our own rules.

McDonald's or Burger King, yes , we should clean those up as well.

Clifford


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20160121/956a6574/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list