Yes, I plan to do some systematic review of the admin_level tags
comparing them to addr:city / addr:suburb. This way the community
can have a data-based discussion on if addr:city etc tags are needed,
or the bounaries are good enough or whatever. But first step, we need
some analysis.
Howev
I want to bump up this thread to see what other opinions are out
there. If you are supportive to remove the addr:province and
addr:country tags in Canada, please speak up. I don't like making big
changes with only 1 comment. (If you like, feel free to reply
privately to me avoid bombarding t
Matthew,
Just one concern - Removing of addr:city. I encourage people to include
addr:city since it's part of their mailing address and could easily be
outside of the city limits. While addr:city isn't needed inside of city
boundaries since it can be obtained from their spatial location, does make
Hi Clifford,
(It was good to meet you at SOTM US last year).
Thanks for your comments... The situation with addr:city appears to me
to be more complex than the situation with addr:province/addr:country,
along the lines of what you are mentioning. My personal home mailing
address cannot be res
I seem to recall from talking to Canada Post that Orleans is the only
location for which that is true. All of Orleans is located within Ottawa.
So how do you tag it? It is within the City of Ottawa these days.
Thanks John
On 19 February 2018 at 10:44, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> Hi Clifford,
>
>
Hi John,
I live in Kanata. If I type my " Ottawa" into the
Canada Post lookup tool
(https://www.canadapost.ca/cpo/mc/personal/postalcode/fpc.jsf?LOCALE=en),
it helpfully corrects me to "Kanata". Same for old "City of Nepean"
addresses. Try "1000 Palladium Drive, Kanata, ON" (Canadian Ti
So what we are saying is the city field should be filled in not with the
physical city but with Canada Posts thoughts of the day?
Orleans is different. It never was a municipality.
Cheerio John
On 19 February 2018 at 11:17, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> I live in Kanata. If I type my
On 2018-02-18 11:04 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
>
> 2 Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville (Stouffville)
Like so many post-Amalgamation towns, Whitchurch-Stouffville is the
official name (http://www4.rncan.gc.ca/search-place-names/unique/FDOLC).
There are some real doozies out there: Ashfield-Colbo
Hi John,
If we want to be able generate mailing addresses from OSM (is that a
valid use case?), then whatever the city address Canada Post thinks we
are in needs to be tagged in some fashion. Google maps and Bing maps
both think I'm in "Kanata". OSM thinks I'm in "Kanata North". Both
are c
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> Hi Clifford,
>
> (It was good to meet you at SOTM US last year).
>
> Thanks for your comments... The situation with addr:city appears to me to
> be more complex than the situation with addr:province/addr:country, along
> the lines of what y
Hi Clifford -
> Just one concern - Removing of addr:city. I encourage people to include
> addr:city since it's part of their mailing address and could easily be
> outside of the city limits.
There isn't the same hard link between cities and mailing addresses — at
least in Ontario. I live inside t
Hi matthew -
> I want to bump up this thread to see what other opinions are out there.
> If you are supportive to remove the addr:province and addr:country tags
> in Canada, please speak up.
Speaking up here …
> Alternately my proposal would be to:
>
> * change addr:state => addr:province
Y
Hi Matthew -
> If we want to be able generate mailing addresses from OSM (is that a
> valid use case?), then whatever the city address Canada Post thinks we
> are in needs to be tagged in some fashion.
It's *a* valid use case. But the only way to make OSM addresses
consistent with Canada Post add
Hi Stewart,
Thanks for replying.
Stewart C. Russell wrote:
Alternately my proposal would be to:
* change addr:state => addr:province
Yes: addr:state is always wrong in Canada, but addr:province might be
problematic for territories and First Nations reservations.
Yep. Is there an alter
On 2018-02-19 01:49 PM, Stewart C. Russell wrote:
Everything beyond the number and street name requires some abstraction,
and then a decision needs to be made over which authority one trusts.
You're doing great work with your consistency edits, but at some point,
completeness/consistency become
> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 23:56:20 +0100
> From: Jarek Piórkowski
> Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> ... It is not clear to me that "Saint Catharines" is the
> correct unabbr
St. Catharines was founded by Loyalists, so they would have been English
speaking making comparing with Quebecois names isn't the greatest idea.
Ontario's place names generally have more in common with British convention
than with French/Quebecois historical conventions. The city's corporate
name
I continue to assert that our (OSM's) name=* wiki states these abbreviations
should be fully expanded and that official_name=* might hold the abbreviation.
In short, "them's the rules" in OSM: part of why I'm pounding so hard on this
is that I might get some recognition that OSM does have rule
Steve,
I respectively I contend that it is not all abbreviations in OSM needs
to be expanded, not withstanding of the general direction to expand
abbreviations in OSM. It is illogical to change the well used name of
a location.
There is even a wiki page which has been around since 2010 that
Steve -
"St. Catharines" is the the official name, _and_ the local name. One can
invent a full name, but it would be an invention.
Have you passed by talk-gb? They have a fair amount of "St" names and some
authority as to how to do things in OSM.
--Jarek
On Feb 19, 2018 22:49, "OSM Volunteer s
Thank you, Matthew. As I said, "slavishly follow rules," no, not necessarily.
"Understand the issues," yes, through good dialog. I like what I see here, it
allows good consensus to emerge, tedious and perhaps even a bit annoying as it
may be. :-)
SteveA
On Feb 19, 2018, at 2:00 PM, Matthew
On 2018-02-19 05:08 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>
> Have you passed by talk-gb? They have a fair amount of "St" names and
> some authority as to how to do things in OSM.
The UK has Bury St Edmunds, Chapel St Leonards, Lytham St Annes, Ottery
St Mary, St Andrews, St Anne, St Austell, St Blazey, St
> On 2018-02-19 05:08 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>> Have you passed by talk-gb? They have a fair amount of "St" names and
>> some authority as to how to do things in OSM.
I haven't, but I shall. As I say quite a bit (in our wiki, e.g.
California/Railroads), "it's complicated around here." THEN
I have summarized the discussion we had here over the last week or so
on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines for
easy reference in the future. It is:
Municipality Names
Municipality names are to be spelt according to how they are listed in
NRCan (http://w
On 2018-02-19 06:44 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
>
> OSM learns by example, by documenting how we should tag
> (prescriptive) and how we do tag (descriptive) …
I think it's the other way around: we map first, see which ideas
coalesce, then document what we've seen has worked. If OSM ever had a
OSM has much in common with language and, it can be said, maps (heh, in a
mathematical sense) fairly directly onto language: plastic tagging syntax,
rules which sometimes get broken, vivid semiotics which change with what we
wish the map to visually "do" for us and usage which newly defines dif
26 matches
Mail list logo
