Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: Search but cannot find

2015-03-19 Thread Pmailkeey .
On 19 March 2015 at 16:31, Ian Caldwell ian1caldwell+...@googlemail.com wrote: On 19 March 2015 at 15:54, Pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: If map renderers don't want to use C and U numbered roads, that is up to them to ignore and not for mappers to place in a different field in

Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: Search but cannot find

2015-03-19 Thread Paul Sladen
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015, Pmailkeey . wrote: Still makes use of 2 fields but keeps the main field 'tidy'. You can use whatever field name you want for non-standard usage, as long as it doesn't interfere with prior art---but you will likely find chosing something unique is not very useful. (...As

Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: Search but cannot find

2015-03-19 Thread Ian Caldwell
On 19 March 2015 at 15:54, Pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: If map renderers don't want to use C and U numbered roads, that is up to them to ignore and not for mappers to place in a different field in the database. But that means that renderers would have to analyse the strings

Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: Search but cannot find

2015-03-19 Thread Pmailkeey .
Hi Dan, On 19 March 2015 at 08:15, Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-03-19 1:54 GMT+00:00 Pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com: On 18 March 2015 at 17:54, Ed Loach edlo...@gmail.com wrote: A wiki search for admin_ref finds

[Talk-GB] Fwd: Search but cannot find

2015-03-18 Thread Pmailkeey .
On 18 March 2015 at 17:54, Ed Loach edlo...@gmail.com wrote: Dan wrote: Can you point us to some further reading about this admin_ref tag? The wiki isn't telling me about it. If there is indeed a consensus then it'd be nice for it to be documented! A wiki search for admin_ref