On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Alex Lum <sierra.os...@gmail.com> wrote: >> In any case, we should be mapping what's "on-the-ground" anyway, i.e. the >> station signage (unless this signage is contradictory in which case it may >> be required to use official records). > > I thought the policy – wherever it's written – was using whatever the > locals think it is. I'm wary of placing too much trust in signage, > because with bike paths in particular, that approach gets you nowhere > fast. But if there's an official operator (which there is), whatever > their website says sounds like a good start. > > We definitely shouldn't have a situation where one person swears blind > that "the real name" of something is xxx even though common sense > dictates that it's yyy.
There is merit in both "on the ground" and "local usage" but the details matter. I wonder if local mappers could come to an agreement by using both name and old_name? There may not be a general answer beyond, "what's the best you can collectively agree to?" As an example, I have a local bit of motorway that appears to be "just more of highway 8." It is, in fact, a high speed bypass of highway 8 which still exists as a local road. Wikipedia suggests that the bypass is officially highway 7187, an un-sign-posted, internal reference number for the highway department. It would be correct, in some ways to use ref=7187, as this is the internal reference number. It would be correct in other ways to use ref=8 based on local, common usage. In the end, the local mappers agreed to leave this section of motorway with no ref=, since this section has no posted highway number "reassurance markers". http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4001108/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.40796&lon=-80.39076&zoom=15&layers=M Best regards, Richard _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au