Re: [Talk-us] Street Naming Conventions
Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 12:23 -0400, Richard Welty wrote: i don't think anyone would argue with this. it's why having a bot rampage through fixing things is probably a Real Bad Idea unless it's extremely well thought out and comprehensively tested beforehand. While I didn't like what the bot was doing (at the time), What was the bot doing? I don't thing rampage is the correct word to use. That implies malice, which wasn't what was attempted. However, it did have a beneficial side effect: this topic. ;-) In the special case of TIGER data there is a tag tiger:name_type=Rd|Ct|Dr|... I would have thought it should be fairly save to reconstruct the name from the tiger:name_* tags while expanding tiger:name_type - IF the name is still the original one. Matthias ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Street Naming Conventions
On 9 April 2010 15:06, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net wrote: Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 12:23 -0400, Richard Welty wrote: i don't think anyone would argue with this. it's why having a bot rampage through fixing things is probably a Real Bad Idea unless it's extremely well thought out and comprehensively tested beforehand. While I didn't like what the bot was doing (at the time), What was the bot doing? I don't thing rampage is the correct word to use. That implies malice, which wasn't what was attempted. However, it did have a beneficial side effect: this topic. ;-) In the special case of TIGER data there is a tag tiger:name_type=Rd|Ct|Dr|... I would have thought it should be fairly save to reconstruct the name from the tiger:name_* tags while expanding tiger:name_type - IF the name is still the original one. Except for a few caveats the bot follows the TIGER documentation and expands everything listed there (taking into account the suffix/prefix requirements), it only touches name and name_1, 2 and so on, leaving alone other tags. I did a dry run on a piece of Canada and the ruleset applies pretty well there too, the streets there were from Geobase. Cheers ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Street Naming Conventions
Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com writes: 3) Prefix, body, suffix is available from the TIGER data, but what about streets that have already been added (or corrected) by users? As we've seen, a bot won't always be able to correctly make these separations (as in the example of Southbay vs. South Bay given previously) How do we make it so that it meets the goals I've given? I would say: - assemble the name out of the tiger:name_* tags - if that matches the name tag re-assemble the name while expanding tiger:name_direction_prefix and tiger:name_direction_prefix and replace the name tag. Matthias ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Street Naming Conventions
On 04/08/2010 10:32 PM, Val Kartchner wrote: 6) Should the direction prefix even be part of the street name since it (mostly) isn't on the sign? That’s not true in all areas. I’m in Wisconsin, and in most cities I’ve been to, if the street has a direction prefix it’s on the sign (abbreviated of course). —Alex Mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Street Naming Conventions
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com writes: On 9 April 2010 15:06, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net wrote: Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 12:23 -0400, Richard Welty wrote: i don't think anyone would argue with this. it's why having a bot rampage through fixing things is probably a Real Bad Idea unless it's extremely well thought out and comprehensively tested beforehand. While I didn't like what the bot was doing (at the time), What was the bot doing? I don't thing rampage is the correct word to use. That implies malice, which wasn't what was attempted. However, it did have a beneficial side effect: this topic. ;-) In the special case of TIGER data there is a tag tiger:name_type=Rd|Ct|Dr|... I would have thought it should be fairly save to reconstruct the name from the tiger:name_* tags while expanding tiger:name_type - IF the name is still the original one. Except for a few caveats the bot follows the TIGER documentation and expands everything listed there (taking into account the suffix/prefix requirements), it only touches name and name_1, 2 and so on, leaving alone other tags. I did a dry run on a piece of Canada and the ruleset applies pretty well there too, the streets there were from Geobase. But, I think it is probably safer to not parse the name and instead reassemble the name from the (expanded) tiger:name_* tags Matthias ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Street Naming Conventions
Alex Mauer wrote: On 04/08/2010 10:32 PM, Val Kartchner wrote: 6) Should the direction prefix even be part of the street name since it (mostly) isn't on the sign? That’s not true in all areas. I’m in Wisconsin, and in most cities I’ve been to, if the street has a direction prefix it’s on the sign (abbreviated of course). That's done in WA state, too. There's even more on signs in certain cities around here - in small letters across the bottom, they often say 'Historic: old street name' with date of change... ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
