Re: [Talk-ca] Postal Code cleanup

[Matthew Darwin]

Task complete.   The multi-postal codes are tagged on buildings which 
may have more than 1 address.  Local mappers who are familiar with the 
areas should review it.   It looks like in many places imports were 
used which incorrectly parsed the addresses.  Many issues where the 
value started with 2 letters representing the province and then an 
incomplete postal code (aka "AA A#A").


 248803 "A#A #A#"    1455 "A#A"  14 "A#A #A#;A#A #A#"   1 
"A#A #A#;A#A #A#;A#A #A#"


(my initial query was incomplete, that's why the numbers are much bigger now... 
I was querying the postal codes where also there is a contact record)


On 2018-02-07 08:01 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:


Hi all,

Below are the 10 top postal code formats in Canada as seen in 
*addr:postcode*. When I get bored of tidying up phone numbers, I'll 
tackle some postal codes.


I hope we can all agree that "A#A #A#", which is the most popular, 
is the correct format that should be used.  The ones that just have 
'A#A' (the "Forward Sortation Area") I will leave as well.   There 
are more than 60 unique formats in use today and funny enough I 
see phone numbers in the postal code field arrh!


I am open to comments/suggestion on this, as always.

  20271 'A#A #A#'
   1454 'A#A#A#'
 96 'a#a#a#'
 37 'A#A #A# '
 29 'a#a #a#'
 28 'A#A'
 24 'A#A #a#'
 23 'AA A#A #A#'
 17 'A#A-#A#'
 12 'A#A #A#'




___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

On Feb 12, 2018, at 6:02 PM, Bernie Connors  wrote:
> I see the use of "City of" as indicating the official name of a municipality 
> as it is defined in legislation. Here in New Brunswick the Municipalities 
> Act‎ defines the official names of municipalities. Some opt to use "City of 
> ", "Town of ", etc in the Municipalities Act and some don't. But when it 
> comes to names on maps we should be more concerned with toponyms and not 
> official names. The use of "City of ", "Town of ", etc is very rare in 
> toponyms.  Here is a query on the Canadian Geographic Names Database 
> searching for the term "of" in the "populated places" category - 
> http://www4.rncan.gc.ca/search-place-names/search?q=of%5B%5D=985=O
> 
> I only see two examples that include "City of ", "Town of ", etc across the 
> entire country:
> City of Brant, ON
> Village of Queen Charlotte, BC

Excellent, Bernie:  I love the word toponym, it is a good one for a talk forum 
about OSM.  Thank you for those elucidations.  I am from outside Canada, though 
the CGND seems an authoritative source here and we do have others chiming in as 
I type.

+1, I agree that toponym is an excellent starting point for the value of the 
name=* key.  City of Brant and Village of Queen Charlotte might have those in 
official_name but check taginfo and dig into this further with more discussion. 
 Discussion is good.

What I meant by "I smell admin_level harmonization" is that as this discussion 
continues about deleting "Township of" and "Village of" data (and similar) that 
better admin_level tagging might result.  A sort of (trade off?) of "well, 
let's capture the data we consider deleting by adding them into OSM using OSM 
methods."

This isn't required, more like a "recycle the scraps on the cutting room floor 
into nice, correct data."  I do that where I can, certainly not always!  Great 
discussion.

SteveA
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

[Kevin Farrugia]

Bernie is correct.  "City of", "Municipality of", "x County" is a legal
name that would be referring to the legal entity itself (the Government)
rather than the place.  The place should just be Toronto, Hamilton,
Mississauga etc..

The data source these legal names comes from has the legal name as it's
usually establishing the jurisdiction that contains the road.  The address
ranges are derived from the road system, so it's just been copied over.

-Kevin Farrugia
kevinfarru...@gmail.com

On 12 February 2018 at 21:02, Bernie Connors  wrote:

> I see the use of "City of" as indicating the official name of a
> municipality as it is defined in legislation. Here in New Brunswick the
> Municipalities Act‎ defines the official names of municipalities. Some opt
> to use "City of ", "Town of ", etc in the Municipalities Act and some
> don't. But when it comes to names on maps we should be more concerned with
> toponyms and not official names. The use of "City of ", "Town of ", etc is
> very rare in toponyms.  Here is a query on the Canadian Geographic Names
> Database searching for the term "of" in the "populated places" category -
> http://www4.rncan.gc.ca/search-place-names/search?q=
> of%5B%5D=985=O
>
> I only see two examples that include "City of ", "Town of ", etc across
> the entire country:
> City of Brant, ON
> Village of Queen Charlotte, BC
>
> Bernie.
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 7:45 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea <
> stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote:
>
>> I smell a harmonization with admin_level...not that there's anything
>> wrong with that.
>> SteveA
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Bernie Connors
> New Maryland, NB
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

[James]

Checked for Toronto and Ottawa they do not have "City of" :
http://www4.rncan.gc.ca/search-place-names/search?q=Toronto[]=985=O
I agree with what Bernie said, unless it's the official name. It seems it's
a classification.

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:02 PM, Bernie Connors 
wrote:

> I see the use of "City of" as indicating the official name of a
> municipality as it is defined in legislation. Here in New Brunswick the
> Municipalities Act‎ defines the official names of municipalities. Some opt
> to use "City of ", "Town of ", etc in the Municipalities Act and some
> don't. But when it comes to names on maps we should be more concerned with
> toponyms and not official names. The use of "City of ", "Town of ", etc is
> very rare in toponyms.  Here is a query on the Canadian Geographic Names
> Database searching for the term "of" in the "populated places" category -
> http://www4.rncan.gc.ca/search-place-names/search?q=
> of%5B%5D=985=O
>
> I only see two examples that include "City of ", "Town of ", etc across
> the entire country:
> City of Brant, ON
> Village of Queen Charlotte, BC
>
> Bernie.
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 7:45 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea <
> stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote:
>
>> I smell a harmonization with admin_level...not that there's anything
>> wrong with that.
>> SteveA
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Bernie Connors
> New Maryland, NB
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

[Bernie Connors]

 I see the use of "City of" as indicating the official name of a
municipality as it is defined in legislation. Here in New Brunswick the
Municipalities Act‎ defines the official names of municipalities. Some opt
to use "City of ", "Town of ", etc in the Municipalities Act and some
don't. But when it comes to names on maps we should be more concerned with
toponyms and not official names. The use of "City of ", "Town of ", etc is
very rare in toponyms.  Here is a query on the Canadian Geographic Names
Database searching for the term "of" in the "populated places" category -
http://www4.rncan.gc.ca/search-place-names/search?q=of%5B%5D=985=O

I only see two examples that include "City of ", "Town of ", etc across the
entire country:
City of Brant, ON
Village of Queen Charlotte, BC

Bernie.

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 7:45 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea <
stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote:

> I smell a harmonization with admin_level...not that there's anything wrong
> with that.
> SteveA
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>



-- 
Bernie Connors
New Maryland, NB
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

[Matthew Darwin]

Kevin thanks for the history lesson.  As I mentioned on other threads, 
I'm relatively new here, so I am missing the context, so I appreciate 
you filling it in.


Looking at the 100 used "Town/City/Municipality of " names, they seem 
to be entirely in Ontario.  So perhaps this is mostly an Ontario 
discussion to start.


Here is the full list of city:suburb values as context to the 
discussion.  It appears mainly used in the Montreal area:


 89 Le Plateau-Mont-Royal 38 Côte-des-Neiges–NDG 37 
Rosemont-Petite-Patrie 36 Mercier-Hochelaga-Maisonneuve 34 
Saint-Laurent 25 Bramalea 24 Dollard-des-Ormeaux 22 
Outremont 21 Villeray-Saint-Michel-PE 20 
Ahuntsic-Cartierville 17 Saint-Leonard 16 Pointe-Claire 12 
Westmount 12 Dorval 11 Mont-Royal 11 
LÎle-Bizard-Sainte-Geneviève  8 Côte Saint-Luc  7 
RDP-Pointe-Aux-Trembles  6 Verdun  6 
Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue  6 Pointe Claire  6 Le Sud Ouest  
6 LaSalle  4 Lachine  4 Erindale  4 Bolton  3 
Montréal-Nord  3 Montreal-Est  3 Anjou  2 Wesmount  2 
Kirkland  2 Hampstead  1 Unionville  1 Scarborough  1 
Pierrefonds-Roxboro  1 North York  1 Le-Sud-Ouest  1 
Gastown  1 Etobicoke  1 Downtown Dartmouth  1 Delta  1 
Beauport  1 Beaconsfield  1 Alton



On 2018-02-12 06:02 PM, Kevin Farrugia wrote:

Hi Matthew,

Not having the "City of" or "Town of" would be preferred - the 
reason those are there is that the CanVec data that was imported 
uses administrative names in the data.


When people search or say an address out loud they would use "123 
Yonge St, Toronto" not "123 Yonge St, City of Toronto".  It's 
something that I think was overlooked when the data was imported and 
has annoyed the hell out of me when I see it...


As for examples like "North York, Toronto" - some people still use 
the pre-amalgamation borough names for the suburbs that were annexed 
into the City of Toronto.  Sometimes it's for a very good purpose - 
there are multiple King, Queen, Main, etc. streets in the current 
city.  In the cases you found, since there are so few, i would 
suggest the former city names be moved to the city:suburb tag and 
Toronto stays in the addr:city tag?




___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

> i believe "city of" is redundant as its a classification vs a name.
> Would we say "village of maniwaki"? nope. 

What "we say" and what "OSM tags" can vary slightly.  Although with names, 
"what we say" is a great place to start and very largely correct.  This is a 
topic which can explode quickly, smearing into many linguistic zones.  We 
define an official_name value at https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:name and 
short_name and loc_name can get in on the act in some cases.

There are places and circumstances where preceding a city's name with "City of" 
is "a very correct answer."  So, sort that out, if we would, please.

We (California) have a city which nearly everybody in all circumstances calls 
Ventura which is "officially" San Buenaventura.  Stuff like this happens.  
Then, there might be a "linguistic register" (like in a legal pleading) where 
"The City of San Buenaventura" is "just what the doctor ordered" acceptably 
correct.

It appears that "City of Toronto" being roughly 91% of a six-figure-strong 
consensus is a clear winner.  However, Kevin Farrugia says something different. 
 We listen, we consider, we allow consensus to emerge and the bold pull 
triggers.  By that I mean "clean up what we now agree needs correcting."

OSM is so delightfully human and organic.  I'm so glad we so widely speak 
amongst ourselves.

SteveA
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

[Matthew Darwin]

On 2018-02-12 06:05 PM, Stewart Russell wrote:
On Feb 12, 2018 17:51, "Matthew Darwin" > wrote:


Hi,

I am now reviewing the *addr**:city* tag. Seems we are not very
consistent how we use it. For example, Toronto:

 110707 City of Toronto    9603 Toronto


With my minimalist mapping hat on (it's invisible), if a 
municipality has a boundary defined, we absolutely don't need 
addr:city (or province or country) in address points.




This is the same logic of why the addr:city=Ottawa tags are few and 
far between.


I'm happy to have the discussion about removing redundant tags.
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

[Kevin Farrugia]

Hi Matthew,

Not having the "City of" or "Town of" would be preferred - the reason those
are there is that the CanVec data that was imported uses administrative
names in the data.

When people search or say an address out loud they would use "123 Yonge St,
Toronto" not "123 Yonge St, City of Toronto".  It's something that I think
was overlooked when the data was imported and has annoyed the hell out of
me when I see it...

As for examples like "North York, Toronto" - some people still use the
pre-amalgamation borough names for the suburbs that were annexed into the
City of Toronto.  Sometimes it's for a very good purpose - there are
multiple King, Queen, Main, etc. streets in the current city.  In the cases
you found, since there are so few, i would suggest the former city names be
moved to the city:suburb tag and Toronto stays in the addr:city tag?

-Kevin

On 12 February 2018 at 17:53, James  wrote:

> i believe "city of" is redundant as its a classification vs a name.
>
> Would we say "village of maniwaki"? nope.
>
> On Feb 12, 2018 5:51 PM, "Matthew Darwin"  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am now reviewing the *addr**:city* tag.   Seems we are not very
>> consistent how we use it.  For example, Toronto:
>>
>>  110707 City of Toronto
>>9603 Toronto
>>   4 North York, Toronto
>>   2 Toronto, ON
>>   2 toronto
>>   1 York, Toronto
>>   1 Torontoitalian
>>   1 Toronto;City of Toronto
>>   1 Toronto
>>
>> Which is correct?  "*City of **Toronto*" or "*Toronto*"?   I would think
>> "Toronto"???   Why do people pick one over the other?
>>
>> There are more than 7000 unique names in Canada.  Below are the top 50.
>> Ottawa is not on the top of the list because there was a local decision to
>> not include the addr:city tag during address addition as there there are
>> many different "city" names since almagamation. (The official Canada Post
>> address still has the old municipality name prior to amalgamation while the
>> City of Ottawa works through de-duplicating street names).
>>
>>  110707 City of Toronto
>>  100066 Gatineau
>>   82606 Montréal
>>   79191 Surrey
>>   71932 Edmonton
>>   51096 Québec
>>   45716 City of Hamilton
>>   37232 Mississauga
>>   35763 Laval
>>   32029 Dartmouth
>>   30969 Kamloops
>>   27234 City of London
>>   25393 City of Brampton
>>   22881 Municipality of Chatham-Kent
>>   18534 Saguenay
>>   17921 Lévis
>>   17251 City of Vaughan
>>   16929 City of St. Catharines
>>   16796 Town of Markham
>>   16592 City of Kawartha Lakes
>>   16403 Trois-Rivières
>>   16086 City of Thunder Bay
>>   15788 Oakville
>>   15335 Sherbrooke
>>   14787 City of Niagara Falls
>>   14338 Norfolk County
>>   13966 City of Kingston
>>   13939 Fredericton
>>   12085 City of Oshawa
>>   11966 Saanich
>>   11950 Calgary
>>   11382 Terrebonne
>>   11332 Richmond Hill
>>   11321 City of Barrie
>>   11080 Town of Fort Erie
>>   10986 Cole Harbour
>>   10981 City of Burlington
>>   10641 Town of Whitby
>>   10635 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu
>>   10455 Drummondville
>>   10347 City of Guelph
>>9906 Municipality of Clarington
>>9666 City of Brantford
>>9603 Toronto
>>9487 Shawinigan
>>9384 City of Sarnia
>>9380 Red Deer
>>9102 City of Windsor
>>9044 City Of Sault Ste. Marie
>>8466 Sudbury
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthew Darwinmatthew@mdarwin.cahttp://www.mdarwin.ca
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

[James]

i believe "city of" is redundant as its a classification vs a name.

Would we say "village of maniwaki"? nope.

On Feb 12, 2018 5:51 PM, "Matthew Darwin"  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am now reviewing the *addr**:city* tag.   Seems we are not very
> consistent how we use it.  For example, Toronto:
>
>  110707 City of Toronto
>9603 Toronto
>   4 North York, Toronto
>   2 Toronto, ON
>   2 toronto
>   1 York, Toronto
>   1 Torontoitalian
>   1 Toronto;City of Toronto
>   1 Toronto
>
> Which is correct?  "*City of **Toronto*" or "*Toronto*"?   I would think
> "Toronto"???   Why do people pick one over the other?
>
> There are more than 7000 unique names in Canada.  Below are the top 50.
> Ottawa is not on the top of the list because there was a local decision to
> not include the addr:city tag during address addition as there there are
> many different "city" names since almagamation. (The official Canada Post
> address still has the old municipality name prior to amalgamation while the
> City of Ottawa works through de-duplicating street names).
>
>  110707 City of Toronto
>  100066 Gatineau
>   82606 Montréal
>   79191 Surrey
>   71932 Edmonton
>   51096 Québec
>   45716 City of Hamilton
>   37232 Mississauga
>   35763 Laval
>   32029 Dartmouth
>   30969 Kamloops
>   27234 City of London
>   25393 City of Brampton
>   22881 Municipality of Chatham-Kent
>   18534 Saguenay
>   17921 Lévis
>   17251 City of Vaughan
>   16929 City of St. Catharines
>   16796 Town of Markham
>   16592 City of Kawartha Lakes
>   16403 Trois-Rivières
>   16086 City of Thunder Bay
>   15788 Oakville
>   15335 Sherbrooke
>   14787 City of Niagara Falls
>   14338 Norfolk County
>   13966 City of Kingston
>   13939 Fredericton
>   12085 City of Oshawa
>   11966 Saanich
>   11950 Calgary
>   11382 Terrebonne
>   11332 Richmond Hill
>   11321 City of Barrie
>   11080 Town of Fort Erie
>   10986 Cole Harbour
>   10981 City of Burlington
>   10641 Town of Whitby
>   10635 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu
>   10455 Drummondville
>   10347 City of Guelph
>9906 Municipality of Clarington
>9666 City of Brantford
>9603 Toronto
>9487 Shawinigan
>9384 City of Sarnia
>9380 Red Deer
>9102 City of Windsor
>9044 City Of Sault Ste. Marie
>8466 Sudbury
>
>
> --
> Matthew Darwinmatthew@mdarwin.cahttp://www.mdarwin.ca
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi,

I am now reviewing the *addr**:city* tag.   Seems we are not very 
consistent how we use it.  For example, Toronto:


 110707 City of Toronto    9603 Toronto   4 North York, Toronto 
  2 Toronto, ON   2 toronto   1 York, Toronto   1 
Torontoitalian   1 Toronto;City of Toronto   1 Toronto


Which is correct?  "*City of **Toronto*" or "*Toronto*"?   I would 
think "Toronto"???   Why do people pick one over the other?


There are more than 7000 unique names in Canada.  Below are the top 
50.  Ottawa is not on the top of the list because there was a local 
decision to not include the addr:city tag during address addition as 
there there are many different "city" names since almagamation. (The 
official Canada Post address still has the old municipality name prior 
to amalgamation while the City of Ottawa works through de-duplicating 
street names).


110707 City of Toronto 100066 Gatineau 82606 Montréal 79191 Surrey 
71932 Edmonton 51096 Québec 45716 City of Hamilton 37232 Mississauga 
35763 Laval 32029 Dartmouth 30969 Kamloops 27234 City of London 25393 
City of Brampton 22881 Municipality of Chatham-Kent 18534 Saguenay 
17921 Lévis 17251 City of Vaughan 16929 City of St. Catharines 16796 
Town of Markham 16592 City of Kawartha Lakes 16403 Trois-Rivières 
16086 City of Thunder Bay 15788 Oakville 15335 Sherbrooke 14787 City 
of Niagara Falls 14338 Norfolk County 13966 City of Kingston 13939 
Fredericton 12085 City of Oshawa 11966 Saanich 11950 Calgary 11382 
Terrebonne 11332 Richmond Hill 11321 City of Barrie 11080 Town of Fort 
Erie 10986 Cole Harbour 10981 City of Burlington 10641 Town of Whitby 
10635 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu 10455 Drummondville 10347 City of 
Guelph 9906 Municipality of Clarington 9666 City of Brantford 9603 
Toronto 9487 Shawinigan 9384 City of Sarnia 9380 Red Deer 9102 City of 
Windsor 9044 City Of Sault Ste. Marie 8466 Sudbury



--
Matthew Darwin
matt...@mdarwin.ca
http://www.mdarwin.ca

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[Matthew Darwin]

Phone number tidy-up is now complete, per the original discussion.  I 
think we still could clean up this list further I welcome any 
discussion in that regard.  Any phone numbers using letters instead of 
numbers remain with letters.


The top 10 formats used in Canada are:

  20640 phone"+#-###-###-
   4457 phone"+# ###-###-
   3749 phone"+# ### ### 
   2630 phone"+# ### ###-
   1293 fax"+#-###-###-
    940 contact:phone"+#-###-###-
    158 contact:fax"+#-###-###-
    118 phone:tollfree"+#-###-###-
    110 phone"###-
 40 phone"+#-###-###-;+#-###-###-

On 2018-02-07 06:46 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:


A further update on this work:

  * I found more yet bizarre phone-related tags "phone:1",
"telephone" and the like.  These have all been tidied.  My
osmfilter now looks like this:    --keep="contact:*=* or
phone*=* or Phone*=* or alt_phone=* or fax*=* or tty*=*"
Additional suggestions for something to search on are welcome so
I get all phone numbers.
  * I found there were some formats used very regionally eg. 
Edmonton Schools used one format consistently and Ottawa Schools
used a different format consistently.
  * The canada.poly filter I have been using includes Saint Pierre
and Miquelon (which does not use North American dialing plan),
as well as a few US entries (especially relations which go near
the border). If anyone knows of a canada.poly that is tighter,
can you point me in the direction?  I am generally leaving
non-Canadian entries alone, but they do count in the stats below.
  * There are now 67 unique tag/phone number format combinations
(down from 400+ originally) when using   egrep -i
'k="[a-z:]*(phone|fax|tty)[a-z:]*" ' $OSMFILENAME | cut -d\"
-f2,4 | sed -e 's/[0-9]/#/g' | sed -e 's/[A-Z]/A/g' | sed -e
's/([a-zA-Z -]*)/(...)/g' | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | wc -l
  * The bulk of the work remaining now is to reformat the big groups
of numbers that do not begin with "+1". I will make changes by
area code to limit the number of canada-wide changesets.


As always, comments welcome.

Here is the new "top 20"as of ~10am ET today:

  12555 phone"+#-###-###-
   4453 phone"+# ###-###-
   4060 phone"###-###-
   3749 phone"+# ### ### 
   2624 phone"+# ### ###-
   2239 phone"(###) ###-
   1292 fax"+#-###-###-
   1032 phone"##
    941 contact:phone"+#-###-###-
    323 phone"+###
    322 phone"+# ### ###
    158 contact:fax"+#-###-###-
    117 phone:tollfree"+#-###-###-
    109 phone"###-
 39 phone"+#-###-###-;+#-###-###-
 25 phone"+#-###-###-
 23 phone"+#-###-###-x###
 17 phone"+# (###) ###-
 14 phone"+#-###-###-x
  9 phone"+#-###-###-x#


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca