On Feb 12, 2018, at 6:02 PM, Bernie Connors <bernie.conn...@unb.ca> 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&theme%5B%5D=985&category=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
