Hi, folks. Just wanted to pass along a heads-up: I went through every object in Vancouver (City of Vancouver bounding box) with an addr:housenumber tag today, and did some cleanups. What I was primarily interested in was correcting addr:street tags: a lot of them used variant formats. For instance, some things on West Hastings Street would be listed as "Hastings", some as "Hastings St", some as "Hastings St.", some as "W Hastings", some as "West Hastings", and some as (the correct) "West Hastings Street". It's amazing how many different ways there are to render street names. =)
Anyhow, I made them all match the names used for the actual street objects themselves, which are all in the 'most correct' form as I understand it (no contractions, regular casing - "West Hastings Street", "East 49th Avenue" and so on). I ran this by pnorman before sending it out and I don't *think* there'd be any reason to object to it, but I thought I'd let the list know. Changesets: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20153277 (a very large one, I'm sorry - I'm used to the software convention of committing all related changes as one large block, but Paul has let me know OSM prefers small staged commits, and I'll do that in future) http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20153308 http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20153377 I also did a few other sanitizations along the way, trying to stick only to things which are completely unambiguous - adding street names for objects with only a house number, correcting completely incorrect formatting (like "the entire address stuffed into the addr:street tag"), fixing spelling errors (yes, I checked to make sure it's not an intentionally misspelled business name), stuff like that. One thing I did which I thought was a no-brainer but realized later may not be quite so clear-cut is to use the addr:unit tag for the common (in Vancouver) case of a business address which is for a particular commercial unit in a building. In Vancouver these addresses are commonly given as "Unit number-Street number Street name", e.g. "101-346 Some Street". Previously different editors had rendered these differently. E.g.: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2560866260/history previously had addr:housename=#642 , I made it addr:unit=642 . I can't find an example of the other formats right away, but some simply put both numbers in the 'addr:housenumber' tag - e.g. addr:housenumber=101-342 - and some did stuff like addr:housenumber=(unit number), addr:street=(house number) (street name). Some of those are pretty inarguably wrong, but now I look at the guidelines, using addr:housename or putting both numbers in addr:housenumber seems to be at least acceptable, so if I was starting over it might have been more conservative to leave those alone. Still, I don't think using addr:unit could reasonably be considered worse than any of the above, and at least now they're all consistent. Most of the changes didn't require any source beyond the existing data and the BC Mosaic aerial imagery; where I needed to double-check a business address I went direct to the business's website. Please do yell at me if I'm messing stuff up :) Thanks! -- adamw _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca