I don't believe there would be any point in creating more tags for possibly incorrect names that are being searched for. A good search engine can do all that legwork for the end user giving suggestions like Google maps or something similar taking the hassle away. As far as street names vs OS Locator vs Street signs, they can all be wrong, no system is infallible, and there are many instances throughout the UK where even the local Council has had the street signs made wrong, I know there have been one or two in Swale! Stupid councils lol :)
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 14:12 +0100, Peter Miller wrote: > On 1 Jun 2010, at 12:18, Ed Avis wrote: > > > Peter Miller <peter.mil...@...> writes: > > > >> We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names > >> which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way. > > > >> Note our proposed 'not:name' tag for suppressing errors in OS Locator > >> data. > > > > I have sometimes used incorrect_name for noting mistakes in street > > names. > > The intention was that if somebody tagged it wrongly, it's likely that > > somebody could also do a search for the incorrect name. OSM search > > engines > > might want to use incorrect_name for a 'did you mean...' suggestion. > > > > It might be useful to distinguish slight spelling mistakes (such as > > the > > "Arthurs Close" mentioned) against cases where OS has a totally > > different > > name for the same bit of street. For variant spellings, there is no > > harm > > in adding them all as incorrect_name, alt_name or whatever. But I > > would > > not want an OSM search engine to pick up names which are known to be > > quite wrong. > > Not that the OS version of 'Arthur's Terrace' misses the 'R' as well > as the apostrophe! ie 'Athurs Terrace'. I would expect a search to > ignore apostrophe's but not 'R's! > > incorrect_name is also fine (but we don't use it at present); if that > one is the recommended practice for the community then we will use it. > Possibly neither have been used extensively yet and we should talk > about what we want. Personally I like the use of ':' because it is the > way other tags create a formal hierarchy, for example source:name; > 'Not' also has the advantage of being shorter. > > Regards, > > > Peter > > > > > > > -- > > Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-GB mailing list > > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
