>Lloyds and TSB banks demerged 5 years ago - yet we still have 180 branches with the old name.
We also have 7 mapped as "LLoyds TSB", 5 as "Lloyds TSB Bank", 4 as "Lloyds TSB Scotland" 3 as (dubious) "Lloyds/TSB", 1 as "LLoyds TSB Bank", 1 as "Lloyds TSB" (double space), 1 as "Lloyd's TSB", 1 as "Lloyds TSB Bank Plc", 1 as "Lloyds TSB Bank PLC" and 1 as "Lloyds-TSB". But on the plus side... um, no, that's lost on me! Sigh. *Rob* On Mon, 7 May 2018 at 20:27, Brian Prangle <bpran...@gmail.com> wrote: > The answer to the question I posed originally seems to be either "never" > or "immediately". Maplin I understand waiting some more time for the > liquidation process to complete. For clarity the mechanical edit would be > shop=vacant and previous_name= whichever variant of the Toys R us name is > present; which preserves the shop amenity with a change of use and > preserves the "landmark" data, which I hope answers some of the concerns > raised so far. Maintaining map data surely has to be a mix of automation > and hand-crafted, not a zealot position of one to the exclusion of the > other. If we know data to be inaccurate and there is an easy fix surely > we're bounden to users of our map to make it the best we can. If we adopt > Frederick's position(which I see, rightly or wrongly, as a quest for > ideological purity) we put community before users, when I see it has to be > a balance between the two. What's the point of building a map if we don't > make it as accurate and complete as possible,* as soon as possible*? > Otherwise it's in danger of becoming purely a thing of beauty hand-crafted > by dedicated hobbyists, with no thought for all those who have decided to > use our map. > > How long should we wait for a mapper to verify something that's changed? > Lloyds and TSB banks demerged 5 years ago - yet we still have 180 branches > with the old name. Likewise the Territorial Army changed name 6 years ago > and we still have 27 instances of the old name. So how about volunteers > for a campaign to contact local mappers and gently encourage them to update > the map? > > Regards > > Brian > > > On 5 May 2018 at 11:57, Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> And for the balance: I disagree with Frederik on this one. >> >> If we know the map is wrong we should fix it. We should not leave it just >> because it may encourage others to fix it and then go on to do other local >> edits. >> >> Frederik's view is that a crap map encourages more people to edit. I'm >> not convinced. A crap map could also put people off - "why bother, OSM is >> so far behind, I'll contribute to/just use Google maps instead" >> >> I agree that a *blank* map encourages new mappers, but that was 10 years >> ago! Less convinced that an out of date map does. At least not with our >> current homepage or if we do get a new mapper its most likely to be a >> single edit (maybe with MapsMe) rather than a new prolific mapper. >> >> So I'm happy with this mechanical edit (full removal preferred, but >> addition of disussed ok too). >> >> Rob >> >> P.s. Do we still have cases of Lloyds TSB in OSM? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb