Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

[Matthew Darwin]

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://www4.rncan.gc.ca/search-place-names/search) or other 
official source. That means:


 *

   Do not include "City of", "Municipality of" or similar in the name
   unless that is officially part of the name.   "Village of Queen
   Charlotte" (BC) is correct, "City of Toronto" is incorrect (should
   be "Toronto").

 *

   Do not expand "St." to "Saint" or "Ste" to "Sainte" just to
   conform to OSM's "don't abbreviate names" rule. If the city name
   is normally has it expanded, then it is maintained as expanded in
   OSM. If it is not normally expanded, then it is not expanded in
   OSM. "Saint John" (NB) and "St. John's" (NL) are both correct.


Feel free to clarify further on the wiki or continue the discussion 
here...



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

On 2018-02-19 06:33 PM, Stewart C. Russell wrote:

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 Columb Major, St
Helens, St Ives, St Monans and St Neots all as town names in OSM. The
only two "Saint .*" towns in the whole British Isles' OSM are Saint
Helier and Saint Peter Port, both in the Channel Islands. Both have
French influences. And just to thumb its nose at us, nearby Alderney has
the town of "St Anne". So I don't think they can be a great example.

Near "St. Louis" (Missouri - abbreviated that way in OSM), OSM has the
towns of "Saint Clair" and "Saint James". In the same area, there's St.
Charles, St. Peters and East St. Louis (IL). In the St. Louis metro
area, there are roughly 4500 ways named "St\. Louis.*" and roughly 3500
ways named "St Louis.*". There are also roughly 3500 ways named "Saint .*"

So this is not a standard well kept.

  Stewart

___
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 (Jarek Piórkowski)

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

> 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, there is what we 
do about that in OSM.  (Our best).

On Feb 19, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:
> The UK has Bury St Edmunds, Chapel St Leonards, Lytham St Annes, Ottery
> St Mary, St Andrews, St Anne, St Austell, St Blazey, St Columb Major, St
> Helens, St Ives, St Monans and St Neots all as town names in OSM. The
> only two "Saint .*" towns in the whole British Isles' OSM are Saint
> Helier and Saint Peter Port, both in the Channel Islands. Both have
> French influences. And just to thumb its nose at us, nearby Alderney has
> the town of "St Anne". So I don't think they can be a great example.

I do not mean to appear to be "the pot calling the kettle black" (even as I 
sheepishly may).  OSM learns by example, by documenting how we should tag 
(prescriptive) and how we do tag (descriptive), — this isn't always clear or 
spelled out — by research such as you've done and by good dialog like here.

> Near "St. Louis" (Missouri - abbreviated that way in OSM), OSM has the
> towns of "Saint Clair" and "Saint James". In the same area, there's St.
> Charles, St. Peters and East St. Louis (IL). In the St. Louis metro
> area, there are roughly 4500 ways named "St\. Louis.*" and roughly 3500
> ways named "St Louis.*". There are also roughly 3500 ways named "Saint .*"
> 
> So this is not a standard well kept.

And we make our point:  OSM doesn't always follow its own rules.  Crowdsourcing 
can be messy, yet we try to improve day by day.  Thanks to all for getting here!

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names (Jarek Piórkowski)

[Stewart C. Russell]

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 Columb Major, St
Helens, St Ives, St Monans and St Neots all as town names in OSM. The
only two "Saint .*" towns in the whole British Isles' OSM are Saint
Helier and Saint Peter Port, both in the Channel Islands. Both have
French influences. And just to thumb its nose at us, nearby Alderney has
the town of "St Anne". So I don't think they can be a great example.

Near "St. Louis" (Missouri - abbreviated that way in OSM), OSM has the
towns of "Saint Clair" and "Saint James". In the same area, there's St.
Charles, St. Peters and East St. Louis (IL). In the St. Louis metro
area, there are roughly 4500 ways named "St\. Louis.*" and roughly 3500
ways named "St Louis.*". There are also roughly 3500 ways named "Saint .*"

So this is not a standard well kept.

 Stewart

___
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]

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 Darwin  wrote:
> 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 lists some 
> exceptions to what should be expanded in the UK: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Invalid_Abbreviation_Expansion

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names (Jarek Piórkowski)

[Ga Delap]

> 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:

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

[Clifford Snow]

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 you are mentioning. My personal home mailing address
> cannot be resolved in OSM because the mailing address does not match any of
> the boundaries.  (OSM boundaries are correct, but the official post address
> cannot be resolved from the boundaries). So I have a feeling that addr:city
> is going to be required, at least in some cases.
>
> Do you have a view on addr:province/addr:state or addr:country?  US/Canada
> probably have more similarities than differences, so your input is very
> welcome.
>
I never include addr:province/state or addr:country when adding an address.
If I see one I leave it there since it isn't harming anything. I did just
go look at the last business [1] I added in Burnaby, BC. Looks like I
didn't add a province but did add the city.  I just checked in iD - it
knows that I'm editing in Canada so it has a province field. Very good iD!

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4933408221
-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

[Matthew Darwin]

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 correct, in different ways.


If I we want to do reverse geo coding using OSM data, then the mailing 
address should be represented in some fashion because that's what 
people expect to see.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr says about addr:city: 
/May not be required if boundary=administrative 
 is 
used correctly. May or may not be a clone of is_in:city 
=* (in some places 
the city in the address corresponds to the post office that serves the 
area rather than the actual city, if any, in which the building is 
located)! The name of the city as given in *postal addresses* of the 
building/area. /(emphasis added)



BTW, this is one of the reasons I started all these discussions about  
aligning Canada OSM data... I was trying to use OSM to build a map for 
a community group and rather than just doing post-cleanup work on the 
map data in my own private copy, I thought it might be better to see 
what data we could align and make useful for everyone.  I'll only take 
it as far as consensus is achieved.



On 2018-02-19 11:25 AM, john whelan wrote:
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 "  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 Tire Center).

As far as I know, within the City of Ottawa, everyone's postal
address uses the pre-amalgamted city names while the city hasn't
yet finished de-duplicating street names.   So addr:city should
probably be filled in accordingly.


On 2018-02-19 11:07 AM, john whelan wrote:

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,

(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
resolved in OSM because the mailing address does not match
any of the boundaries.  (OSM boundaries are correct, but
the official post address cannot be resolved from the
boundaries). So I have a feeling that addr:city is going to
be required, at least in some cases.

Do you have a view on addr:province/addr:state or
addr:country? US/Canada probably have more similarities
than differences, so your input is very welcome.







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

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names in Ontario

[Stewart C. Russell]

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-Colborne-Wawanosh,
Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield, Havelock-Belmont-Methuen …

Having spent several years working on a project in
Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh (just north of Goderich), the new name hadn't
exactly taken.

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

[Clifford Snow]

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
it much easier to full addresses from OSM. I would recommend not removing
addr:city.

My perspective is from the states where I'm familiar with how the US Postal
service operates. If this isn't true in Canada - please ignore.

Clifford

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:21 AM, Matthew Darwin  wrote:

> 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
> the list with "me too" and I will summarize the replies on the list).
> Prior to starting this discussion, I too have been removing these tags when
> I come across them (a few places in London, ON had country=US???)
>
> Alternately my proposal would be to:
>
>- change addr:state => addr:province
>- add ~2.7 million missing  addr:province / addr:country where they
>don't exist
>- an then then to standardize what we are putting into those fields.
>eg for addr:province in Ontario: ON, on, Ontario, ONTARIO, Ont, ont, or the
>several other variations that exist today.  ("ON" is most popular, followed
>by "Ontario")
>
> If you don't like either of the above, I would really like to hear why
> having the tags in some places but not others is a good thing.  As you may
> have noticed based on my posts over the last few weeks that I like to have
> things (more) consistent, unless there is a (good) reason not to be
> consistent.
>
>
> On 2018-02-16 12:52 PM, Alan Richards wrote:
>
> I typically remove these tags when I come across them, as yes, I've heard
> the same argument that they're redundant.
>
> I like all this cleanup you've been doing with phone numbers, addresses,
> etc. Kudos!
>
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Matthew Darwin 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> During the discussion of cleaning up municipality names in Canada, it was
>> suggested that the addr:city could be removed entirely if the appropriate
>> boundaries are defined.   I would hazard to guess (and will endeavour to
>> investigate) that the addr:city and the boundaries do not always align in
>> Canada (there are ~11300 administrative boundaries of some type and there
>> are ~7000 unique addr:city tags)... so this will be a much more long term
>> effort.
>>
>> However, the provincial/territorial boundaries are defined, so removing
>> the addr:country, addr:provice and addr:state tags might be a more
>> reasonable at this time.  (addr:country is used ~94% less than addr:street)
>>
>> Tags, by number of occurrences:
>>
>>  167902 addr:country
>>
>>   33252 addr:state
>>
>>  179741 addr:province
>>
>> 2950115 addr:city
>>
>> 2942159 addr:street
>>
>> 2934341 addr:housenumber
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca