Re: [Talk-GB] Bartholomews, Brighton
Maybe add a note on both Bartholemews / Avenue and perhaps an alt_name="Bartholemews Avenue" on both too (doesn't seem like something that would easily be reconstructed by Nominatim)? Neil On 26/07/2018 17:11, Mark Goodge wrote: > > > On 26/07/2018 16:39, Martin Wynne wrote: >> > And, since that also matches what's on the ground, >> >> What's on the ground is that a property in Avenue has a postal >> address in East Street, so maybe Avenue is simply a part of East >> Street and should be mapped as "East Street"? >> >> It is in the normal run of East Street numbers - 60 not 60A: >> >> http://www.cutemedia.com/contact/ > > It's on the corner of Avenue and East Street. So it's not surprising > that it has an address in East Street. There are no properties which > face solely onto Avenue. They all face onto East Street or Old Steine. > > Google Streetview clearly shows a name plate for "Avenue": > > https://goo.gl/maps/97fkMqoXCg72 > > and at the other end: > > https://goo.gl/maps/siHbb4nKEFN2 > > Mark > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bartholomews, Brighton
On 26/07/2018 16:39, Martin Wynne wrote: > And, since that also matches what's on the ground, What's on the ground is that a property in Avenue has a postal address in East Street, so maybe Avenue is simply a part of East Street and should be mapped as "East Street"? It is in the normal run of East Street numbers - 60 not 60A: http://www.cutemedia.com/contact/ It's on the corner of Avenue and East Street. So it's not surprising that it has an address in East Street. There are no properties which face solely onto Avenue. They all face onto East Street or Old Steine. Google Streetview clearly shows a name plate for "Avenue": https://goo.gl/maps/97fkMqoXCg72 and at the other end: https://goo.gl/maps/siHbb4nKEFN2 Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bartholomews, Brighton
And calling city council officers idiots is not the most helpful of changeset comment. On Thu, 26 Jul 2018, 16:39 Martin Wynne, wrote: > > And, since that also matches what's on the ground, > > What's on the ground is that a property in Avenue has a postal address > in East Street, so maybe Avenue is simply a part of East Street and > should be mapped as "East Street"? > > It is in the normal run of East Street numbers - 60 not 60A: > > http://www.cutemedia.com/contact/ > > Martin. > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bartholomews, Brighton
> And, since that also matches what's on the ground, What's on the ground is that a property in Avenue has a postal address in East Street, so maybe Avenue is simply a part of East Street and should be mapped as "East Street"? It is in the normal run of East Street numbers - 60 not 60A: http://www.cutemedia.com/contact/ Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bartholomews, Brighton
On 26/07/2018 13:32, Paul Berry wrote: I can't help but think this changeset is misguided for a number of reasons. However I'm nowhere near Brighton so not really in a position to verify other than from memory and some armchair detective work. To wit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/59687846 So, two ways: "Bartholomews" and "Avenue" or just one: "Bartholomews Avenue"? FWIW, they are separate streets, "Bartholomews" and "Avenue", on the NSG, with different USRNs. "Bartholomews" also appears on OS Open Names, although "Avenue" doesn't (probably because it's solely a pedestrianised route now and not a vehicle route, so it isn't categorised as a road). I know we can't use NSG data directly as it isn't (yet!) open, but Open Names is. FWIW, I think it's likely that the changeset author's comments are right, and it is originally from an error by the highway authority. But, if so, it was an error made long enough ago to have become the current, canonical name. And, since that also matches what's on the ground, I see no reason to try to "correct" it on OSM. I'd revert the change. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bartholomews, Brighton
> I guess it hasn't caused a problem because AFAIK > there aren't any addresses in 'Avenue'. Engraved in stone: https://goo.gl/maps/EXgJxpmjesn That number 60 address is part of East Street: http://www.cutemedia.com/contact/ Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bartholomews, Brighton
I am in Brighton and had wondered about the 'Avenue' road sign https://goo.gl/maps/sf1fv2tJbav (and the 'Bartholomews' road sign on the Town Hall) I guess it hasn't caused a problem because AFAIK there aren't any addresses in 'Avenue'. Graves and Pilcher Estate Agents is on the Old Steine. All Saints is on East Street. Somebody may have misinterpreted an old map, but that doesn't change that right now they *are* called 'Bartholomews' and 'Avenue' separately and signs on the ground prove it. Although the changeset creator has a good point. Chalk it up to another Brighton Quirk. We love them :D Regards, Jez On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 at 13:46 Tom Hughes wrote: > On 26/07/18 13:32, Paul Berry wrote: > > I can't help but think this changeset is misguided for a number of > > reasons. However I'm nowhere near Brighton so not really in a position > > to verify other than from memory and some armchair detective work. > > > > To wit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/59687846 > > > > So, two ways: "Bartholomews" and "Avenue" or just one: "Bartholomews > > Avenue"? > > > > From what I can tell, "Bartholomews Avenue" is actually a mapping error > > from some 20th Century editions of printed maps (not 19th as the user > > claims), which *hasn't* been carried through to any other sources. I > > don't see why we should repeat that mistake. > > Both the 1880s 1:2500 and the 1950s 1:2500 have the same issue > that the "Avenue" is very separate from "Bartholomws" and the side > roads round the town hall don't have the "Avenue" at all: > > https://maps.compton.nu/view#18/50.82039/-0.13968/os2500 > https://maps.compton.nu/view#18/50.82039/-0.13968/os1250 > > Tom > > -- > Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) > http://compton.nu/ > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bartholomews, Brighton
On 26/07/18 13:32, Paul Berry wrote: I can't help but think this changeset is misguided for a number of reasons. However I'm nowhere near Brighton so not really in a position to verify other than from memory and some armchair detective work. To wit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/59687846 So, two ways: "Bartholomews" and "Avenue" or just one: "Bartholomews Avenue"? From what I can tell, "Bartholomews Avenue" is actually a mapping error from some 20th Century editions of printed maps (not 19th as the user claims), which *hasn't* been carried through to any other sources. I don't see why we should repeat that mistake. Both the 1880s 1:2500 and the 1950s 1:2500 have the same issue that the "Avenue" is very separate from "Bartholomws" and the side roads round the town hall don't have the "Avenue" at all: https://maps.compton.nu/view#18/50.82039/-0.13968/os2500 https://maps.compton.nu/view#18/50.82039/-0.13968/os1250 Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Bartholomews, Brighton
I can't help but think this changeset is misguided for a number of reasons. However I'm nowhere near Brighton so not really in a position to verify other than from memory and some armchair detective work. To wit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/59687846 So, two ways: "Bartholomews" and "Avenue" or just one: "Bartholomews Avenue"? >From what I can tell, "Bartholomews Avenue" is actually a mapping error from some 20th Century editions of printed maps (not 19th as the user claims), which *hasn't* been carried through to any other sources. I don't see why we should repeat that mistake. Brighton & Hove City Council have these streets as "Bartholomews" and "Avenue", as do Royal Mail, and they are signed on the ground as such (including signwriting on shopfronts)! Can someone in downtown Brighton double-check all this? I suspect a reversion is on the cards... I've only noticed because I remarked on "Avenue" when I was last there two years ago.and took a photo of it :) Regards, *Paul* ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
