Re: [Talk-us] Abbreviation Police
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 23:32:54 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote: Rather than United Stated Highway 29 Frontage Road just U.S. 29 Frontage Road or maybe US 29 Frontage Road. Why. Because no will say the formal out load. Rather than Interstate 95 Frontage Road, just I-95 Frontage Road. Why? Even though some will say the formal, most just say the letter I. You can do this in the renderer or text-to-speech system if you use the unabridged form. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Abbreviation Police
On Sat, 7 Aug 2010, Paul Johnson wrote: On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 23:32:54 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote: Rather than United Stated Highway 29 Frontage Road just U.S. 29 Frontage Road or maybe US 29 Frontage Road. Why. Because no will say the formal out load. Rather than Interstate 95 Frontage Road, just I-95 Frontage Road. Why? Even though some will say the formal, most just say the letter I. You can do this in the renderer or text-to-speech system if you use the unabridged form. Hu? Can you please elaborate? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Removing tiger:* tags
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:52:31 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: Please keep them. They're not hurting anything. Mapper fatigue. I don't really see how anything beyond tiger:reviewed=no and tiger:tlid= tags are useful at this point, save to make tags more difficult to sift through by human editors. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Abbreviation Police
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:56:51 -0700, Alan Mintz wrote: Yes. Last time, a couple of us (or maybe just me - I forget) argued that it was OK to use common abbreviations for some well-known street types - at least St, Ave, Blvd, Pl, etc. - but the opposition was significant, and no change could be agreed upon. (OT - I wish that recognition of similar opposition in the tiger tag removal were given the same weight) On the other hand, it's easier to handle non-abbreviated words in an automated fashion and the general global consensus has been for a long time now that abbreviations complicate things unnecessarily. Meanwhile, it has been observed on more than one occasion that the quality of the data imported by TIGER is nearly or entirely worse than a blank map. Or do people here really think everything should be expand to the fullest. Trying to keep the discussion focused, I didn't write about all the places where abbreviations _are_ actually being widely used, theoretically against policy, like road networks, bike networks, pretty much any import with its own namespace, hgv, psv, source, etc. Because in the cases key names, the meaning is unique and unambiguous, and in the case of network symbols, closely following national or international standards for those symbols. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Directional Prefix/Postfix Proposal
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:05:10 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote: To avoid this either: 1) A clear exception needs to be made 2) The official rule need to be toned down. I vote for 3) It's there for good reason. If you want abbreviations, tell your map renderer to garble the data for you. Pre-garbling the data complicates other usage scenarios. Don't do it. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Directional Prefix/Postfix Proposal
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:54:48 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote: I would like to formally propose two things 1) An exception to the abbreviation rule for directional indicators with the fully expanded name going into alt_name 2) New tags to record the presence of directional indicators in the address. Opposed. Sounds like something you could do for yourself in a renderer to convert fully-spelled-out words to whatever abbreviation you want. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Directional Prefix/Postfix Proposal
On Sat, 7 Aug 2010, Paul Johnson wrote: On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:54:48 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote: I would like to formally propose two things 1) An exception to the abbreviation rule for directional indicators with the fully expanded name going into alt_name 2) New tags to record the presence of directional indicators in the address. Opposed. Sounds like something you could do for yourself in a renderer to convert fully-spelled-out words to whatever abbreviation you want. Thank you for your vote, it is very clear you are opposed to any abbreviation, no matter what. I am unlikely to try too push this though any time soon, so the abbreviation police have won again, for now. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Removing tiger:* tags
At the risk of being accused of letting a good argument die... At 2010-08-07 13:28, Paul Johnson wrote: On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:52:31 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: Please keep them. They're not hurting anything. Mapper fatigue. I don't really see how anything beyond tiger:reviewed=no and tiger:tlid= tags are useful at this point, save to make tags more difficult to sift through by human editors. Except that a number of people have made cases for wanting to have this data remain, at least for now. It is not in the spirit of the project to step on data that others create and/or want, regardless of whether you agree with their need or not, unless it is dead wrong and misleading. TIGER:* (and many other import something:*) tags are in their own namespace to make it clear that they are the raw values from an import. Until those values serve no purpose to anyone (and a few have said that they still do), they should remain. If it's fatiguing for you, I'll accept that, even though I don't see that myself when using Potlatch or JOSM. Let's modify whatever editor you use to hide those tags for you if you want. I am also seeing instances of gnis:* tags getting removed in the process of creating closed ways for those features, instead of those tags being copied to the new closed ways. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Abbreviation Police
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:04:31 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote: Since when does a frontage road get a Highway shield? There's some special cases in Oregon where I 84 and US 30 are multiplexed. US 30 takes the frontage in every city except Portland, Gresham, Wood Village and Troutdale. Granted, this isn't normal, but it's an example of where it might happen. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Abbreviation Police
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:09:10 -0400, Richard Welty wrote: On 8/4/10 7:45 AM, Richard Weait wrote: North Service Road and South Service Road. Romantic names, I know. Are these similar to what you are calling frontage roads? http://www.openstreetmap.org/? lat=43.58872lon=-79.57644zoom=17layers=M i certainly would call those frontage roads. Perhaps frontage roads are an edge case that have been dealt with in another jurisdiction. Are there suggestions from tagging, or talk? if the frontage roads have signs (some do, some don't) the name should be from the sign. otherwise, i'd go with local usage. some places use Service Road, others use Frontage Road, and i'm sure there are other usages. If there is no name, don't tag it with a name= tag. If it's known by the locals by a certain name, then loc_name= would be appropriate, even if no name= tag is used. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Abbreviation Police
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:42:52 -0700, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: I think typically this isn't part of a name at all. Are people using it in an address for mailing? how is it written in official records? how would anyone do a search for a street? there are many corner cases so there is no simple yes or no I might be special, but I do not use abbreviations at all when writing addresses. Removes all ambiguity, especially given the number of times I've had my mail get returned as undeliverable because some dumbass addressed it to Portland, AR instead of Portland, OR. If they hadn't used the abbreviation, that wouldn't have happened... ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Abbreviation Police
At 2010-08-07 12:59, Paul Johnson wrote: Meanwhile, it has been observed on more than one occasion that the quality of the data imported by TIGER is nearly or entirely worse than a blank map. People can observe all they want - it doesn't make them right, and this particular observation would be absurd, not to mention offensive to those that worked on it! I wouldn't have even considered working on the project without the presence of the TIGER (or some other centerline) import. It's almost always far more work creating roads than fixing them. I know this from experience drawing new developments, some rather large, as well as aligning and verifying against photos thousands of existing streets over thousands of square miles of urban, suburban, and rural southern CA. Or do people here really think everything should be expand to the fullest. Trying to keep the discussion focused, I didn't write about all the places where abbreviations _are_ actually being widely used, theoretically against policy, like road networks, bike networks, pretty much any import with its own namespace, hgv, psv, source, etc. Because in the cases key names, the meaning is unique and unambiguous, and in the case of network symbols, closely following national or international standards for those symbols. I'm talking about values, not just keys. I wrote in the original thread that making a small handful of common, unambiguous, abbreviations for street types acceptable would cover a large percentage of the cases. It is particularly useful and unambiguous if we separate them out into their own tag (which is why this came up again). Lastly, it matches the overwhelming majority of print usage and signage. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposal to change ref format for county roads in Florida from (x) to CR x
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:17:43 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Presently numbered county roads in Florida (and New Jersey) are tagged using parentheses, for example ref=(535) for County Road 535. The reasons for this are essentially a historical accident. I'm proposing a semi-automated change from this to ref=CR 535. The present format is likely confusing to most users, while the new format would be easier to understand and no harder for a renderer to convert to a shield. I don't see a problem with this. Be careful, I've noticed some areas where the numbers are in () for state routes as well (since most maps render state routes with the MUTCD generic state route oval). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Abbreviation Police
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:37:33 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote: Or do people here really think everything should be expand to the fullest. Abbreviations are bad because they can't be easily automatically expanded. However, it's easy to abbreviate in a renderer when you know what the full word is. Classic example: Abbreviate the word Street. Ok, now expand the abbreviation St. Really, would anyone say: United States Highway 29. Rather than U S Highway 29 or more likely just U S 29. Everybody calls Martin Luther King, Junior Boulevard MLK or Milk Junior, but that doesn't stop the name from being the long-form. At least 1st hasn't been expand to First, etc. But just wait... Ordinal numbers are not abbreviations. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Directional Prefix/Postfix Proposal
On Sat, 2010-08-07 at 13:15 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: I vote for 3) It's there for good reason. If you want abbreviations, tell your map renderer to garble the data for you. Pre-garbling the data complicates other usage scenarios. Don't do it. +1 Call me an abbreviation police if you want. But you can make software reliably abbreviate things; you can't make it reliably unabbreviate things. If you think you really need abbreviations, you need to work on the renderer, not the tags. - Alan ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Directional Prefix/Postfix Proposal
On 8/8/10 12:22 AM, Alan Millar wrote: On Sat, 2010-08-07 at 13:15 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: I vote for 3) It's there for good reason. If you want abbreviations, tell your map renderer to garble the data for you. Pre-garbling the data complicates other usage scenarios. Don't do it. +1 Call me an abbreviation police if you want. But you can make software reliably abbreviate things; you can't make it reliably unabbreviate things. If you think you really need abbreviations, you need to work on the renderer, not the tags. i concur. abbreviations are for the renderer(s), not for the database. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Directional Prefix/Postfix Proposal
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Richard Welty wrote: On 8/8/10 12:22 AM, Alan Millar wrote: On Sat, 2010-08-07 at 13:15 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: I vote for 3) It's there for good reason. If you want abbreviations, tell your map renderer to garble the data for you. Pre-garbling the data complicates other usage scenarios. Don't do it. +1 Call me an abbreviation police if you want. But you can make software reliably abbreviate things; you can't make it reliably unabbreviate things. If you think you really need abbreviations, you need to work on the renderer, not the tags. i concur. abbreviations are for the renderer(s), not for the database. For those voting +1 have you even read my original proposal on the reason I want to abbreviate? In any case I am already sick of this debate and am staying out of it, so it doesn't really matter. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Directional Prefix/Postfix Proposal
How about this proposal for US streets: (1) Leave name unabbreviated (2) Put whatever form you want of abbreviated name in name:en Thoughts? - Alan ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Directional Prefix/Postfix Proposal
On Sat, 2010-08-07 at 22:35 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote: For those voting +1 have you even read my original proposal on the reason I want to abbreviate? Yes. You gave a list of reasons it would be OK, and rules people would have to follow to make it work. Some of the reasons I consider suspect (such as almost always in small letters is a subjective, regionally-variant assessment). Other reasons were more rules and restrictions (such as period after single-letter abbrevs.) OSM is hard enough for people to get consistent on already. Keep the name tag unabbreviated. You certainly CAN have all the abbreviations you want. I'm just saying not to put them in the name tag; put them in another tag. I personally don't care if it is loc_name, alt_name, name_2, name:en, abbreviated_name, or whatever else you want to call it. Then work on getting the renderer to show it instead of the name tag when it exists. Why isn't that a good solution for you? - Alan ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] How to get college students involved?
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 13:00:48 -0400, Stefan Brandle wrote: I teach computer science at a university about half way between Indianapolis and Ft. Wayne. I would love to have someone show us how to get involved mapping precise data locally and submitting it to various online data sets, or working on software that is helpful to OSM and others. We have students who need senior projects, and also run the occasional special topics class. On my campus, I lead by example. Folks spotted me mapping the campus, and it spread to the rest of the city from there. http://osm.org/go/CICAoLV@ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Abbreviation Police
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 18:28:26 -0700, Alan Mintz wrote: Lastly, it matches the overwhelming majority of print usage and signage. If print usage and signage were consistent even between cities in the same state, I'd tend to agree. Given that what areas abbreviate which words and what abbreviation they use for it, I'd say trying to find abbreviations everyone can agree on for this is entirely futile to the point of not even being worth trying. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Directional Prefix/Postfix Proposal (take 2)
I'm giving this another shot, this time I am completely staying out of the abbreviation debate. A full street address included more than just a Number and a Street, it also includes a directional prefix and suffix. Vid the kid, gave an excellent overview at http://vidthekid.info/misc/osm-abbr.html. For example (from his page) in the address: 4242 S Champion Ave E The 'S' is a directional prefix and the 'E' is the suffix and in: 1337 Rainbow Dr SW The 'SW' is a directional suffix (really a quadrant suffix). I hereby propose new tags to record the presence of directional indicators in the address as follows: Assuming the name is stored in name the new tags shall be name:prefix name:suffix name:full If an alternative street name is stored in another tag than replace name with that tag, for example alt_name:prefix. If the directional prefix or suffix is not part of the name than the appropriate tag shall be used to indicate the need for a directional prefix in an address. It shall be one of: 'N' 'S' 'E' 'W', 'NW' 'SW', 'NE', 'SE' If it is included in the word included shall be used instead. This means the the first word (for a prefix) or the last word (for a suffix) is a directional indicator. The inclusion of a directional prefix or suffix should be decided on a city by city bases and is not part of this proposal. The full name can go in 'name:full as an aid in name finder and the like. But this tag is essentially redundant so I am glad to make it optional. If the full name is not provided the formation of an address shall be as follows: number prefix if exists and not the word included name suffix if exists and not the word included Notes: I use the word included rather than a new tag to simplify data entry. It also does not significantly complicate usage of the tag. But I am not dead set on the idea. Separating out the base name and the street type would be nice, but I don't think anyone will really enter in all those tags. Also I want to limit the scope to directional prefix or postfixes. Thoughts? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] Mapquest launches site based on OSM!
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:06:52 -0400, Phil! Gold wrote: * Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org [2010-07-21 00:19 -0700]: On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:15:18 -0400, Phil! Gold wrote: I what way does OpenCycleMap get this right? As far as I can tell, it doesn't render road shields at all. No, but it does render route relations. It's the shields I want, and they're harder than just rendering relations at all, because the information I need is split between the regular roads and the route relations. The relations have the data for the shields, but the roads have the highway= tag that indicates when the shields need to be rendered. I'd also prefer to be able to say if this road has a ref=, but is not a member of a route relation, render the ref=, but that's a giant pain to do. Perhaps Richard could shed some more light on this, but relations are pretty much going to be necessary to properly render route shields given the huge variety in highway networks in North America and the world. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Directional Prefix/Postfix Proposal
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 18:43:33 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote: I am unlikely to try too push this though any time soon, so the abbreviation police have won again, for now. Why so condescending? I can't say this attitude is likely to change consensus in your favor, especially considering that whether or not to use abbreviations is a global issue, not a USian one... ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Directional Prefix/Postfix Proposal
On Sat, 7 Aug 2010, Paul Johnson wrote: On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 18:43:33 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote: I am unlikely to try too push this though any time soon, so the abbreviation police have won again, for now. Why so condescending? I can't say this attitude is likely to change consensus in your favor, especially considering that whether or not to use abbreviations is a global issue, not a USian one... Sorry to come off that way. It just that this topic comes up again and again. I thought I could make a dent to the debate, but I was wrong. You appeared to have not read the full proposal and simply saw, yet another proposal for abbreviations, and simply reacted with no. I'm sorry if I misjudged you. In any case I rather not debate when and if to abbreviate any further. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Directional Prefix/Postfix Proposal
On Sat, 7 Aug 2010, Alan Millar wrote: On Sat, 2010-08-07 at 22:35 -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote: You certainly CAN have all the abbreviations you want. I'm just saying not to put them in the name tag; put them in another tag. I personally don't care if it is loc_name, alt_name, name_2, name:en, abbreviated_name, or whatever else you want to call it. Then work on getting the renderer to show it instead of the name tag when it exists. Why isn't that a good solution for you? It might be. But I don't think name:en is the right tag (from your previous email). In any case I want to focus on the other part of my proposal. See my other email I just sent out. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
