Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

Many thanks for doing this update Cheers - Phil -Original Message- From: tabjsina Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2022 11:26 PM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format? So all of Australia with the exception of Victoria is now fixed to use

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

Thanks all for the guidance here. I've uploaded the change (required 4 in the end, as there was a 1 change limit per changeset). Here they are: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117749014 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117749015 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/11774902

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

Hi Justin, I see a single batch change as the preferred route as it has no logic other than swapping the values of Victoria and VIC and there is no reason why you would want to revert this at all. Thanks for fixing this anomaly Australia wide and the time you have spent on this. Ewen On Wed,

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

Can't see it being an issue? Thanks Graeme On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 22:30, tabjsina wrote: > So all of Australia with the exception of Victoria is now fixed to use > capitalized state abbreviations. As mentioned before, Victoria was the > state that had a much closer (though still not entirely

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

So all of Australia with the exception of Victoria is now fixed to use capitalized state abbreviations. As mentioned before, Victoria was the state that had a much closer (though still not entirely close) split between "Victoria" and "VIC", which leaves a whopping 32k addresses that need to be

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

I think it is still usual practice to have a label node as part of the relation for the boundaries of each suburb. Ideally this label node is placed at the business or residential centre of the area even if it is not the geographical centre. For example see Hillgrove NSW (near Armidale) https:/

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 12:16, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > Assuming the suburb / locality boundaries have been mapped (which they > should not be Australia wide from an import), then data consumers can infer > the rest of the attributes. Check out Nominatim, > https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/d

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

Since only Northern Territory, Queensland and Victoria remain with inconsistencies, I only created those challenges. Will add other states if new changes creep in with a different format. Victoria - https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/24424 Queensland - https://maproulette.org/browse/chal

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

Good call - will split it up sometime in the next few days On 31/1/2022 12:36 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 14:18, tabjsina > wrote: Thanks all - let me know if you have any concerns or suggestions Probably easiest, & less messy, t

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 14:18, tabjsina wrote: > > Thanks all - let me know if you have any concerns or suggestions > Probably easiest, & less messy, to set several up, one for each state - it'd be OK to include ACT in NSW, or Tas in Vic Oops! : TAS in VIC :-) Thanks Graeme

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

As a follow-up, here it is - https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/24307 Seems like there is a limit to how many get loaded at a time, so the initial batch is NSW and NT only, but more should load up after the set is cleared Thanks all - let me know if you have any concerns or suggestions

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

Harvey Sent: Monday, 31 January 2022 1:16 PM To: Graeme Fitzpatrick Cc: OSM-Au ; tabjsina Subject: Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format? On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 09:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> > wrote: & to clarify, we only need to include

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

It is safer putting in the street name. Nominatim fills in street from the street physically closest to the addr tag, which is not always correct. Sarah is aware and looking at measures to improve that - for example by looking at nearby street numbers for sequentiallity - but I doubt it could b

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 12:16, Andrew Harvey wrote: > Check out Nominatim, > https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=N&osmid=6496603926&class=place > it shows the inherited attributes like suburb, postcode, state. > & by the look at it, in built-up areas at least, it will even

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 09:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > & to clarify, we only need to include the street address for anything, & > not the suburb / town / city? > Assuming the suburb / locality boundaries have been mapped (which they should not be Australia wide from an import), then data co

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 23:17, tabjsina wrote: > It looks like Qld makes up ~3700 address states and QLD is at 15000 > ("Queensland" is ~1000 as a comparison). > > I'm thinking I'll make an adjustment in the Queensland code to skip > cases that are "Qld", but otherwise (For complete errors, and >

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

*From:*Graeme Fitzpatrick *Sent:* Sunday, 30 January 2022 10:10 AM *To:* tabjsina *Cc:* OSM-Au *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format? G'day Justin & welcome! Asking any question that you've got is quite definitely the best way of doing things - thanks!

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 16:53, tabjsina wrote: > In this case I intend to specifically only update tags that already have > a state field defined, rather than populating the empty ones. Andrew, do > you think that adjusting the existing tag values to match the VIC > majority would go against the c

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

In this case I intend to specifically only update tags that already have a state field defined, rather than populating the empty ones. Andrew, do you think that adjusting the existing tag values to match the VIC majority would go against the coming data import plans you mentioned? -Justin On

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

In this case I intend to specifically only update tags that already have a state field defined, rather than populating the empty ones. Andrew, do you think that adjusting the existing tag values to match the VIC majority would go against the coming data import plans you mentioned? -Justin On

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

Many people would be mapping because iD has a template which includes state, so people see an empty field and try to enter more complete information. Many people new to OSM don't know that addresses inherit state and suburb from the existing boundaries. >From the VIC address import work there was

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

! Cheers - Phil From: Graeme Fitzpatrick Sent: Sunday, 30 January 2022 10:10 AM To: tabjsina Cc: OSM-Au Subject: Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format? G'day Justin & welcome! Asking any question that you've got is quite definitely the best way of doing t

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

Hi, Is there any advantage to tagging addresses with the state when the state is already well defined in OSM and the state for a given address location can be obtained from existing map data? I'm not criticising Justin's work - improved consistency is good. I'm asking the open ended question

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

G'day Justin & welcome! Asking any question that you've got is quite definitely the best way of doing things - thanks! I agree fully about the acronyms rather than spelling the name in full, with the exception that I personally use Qld rather than QLD. If I was down there, I'd probably also use

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

@openstreetmap.org Subject: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format? Hello, I'm new to this mailing list (and mailing lists in general), apologies if I'm doing it wrong :) I've recently made a maproulette challenge which asked users to confirm updating any populating addr:state v

[talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

Hello, I'm new to this mailing list (and mailing lists in general), apologies if I'm doing it wrong :) I've recently made a maproulette challenge which asked users to confirm updating any populating addr:state value in Western Australia to "WA", if it was something else. Previously, about 90