previous_name isn't documented -- and seems a bad idea. It's unlikely to be searchable with Nominatim, and won't be rendered.
This is the scheme some of us are using in Bristol https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Bristol#Lifecycle. ---- In an ideal world (!) I'd say use something like disused:name / proposed:name. * disused:name / proposed:name would be searchable. * proposed:name and disused:name would both be rendered (at lower priority to name) and "faintly" * validation support No idea how such a Utopia might be achieved though. Neil On 07/05/2018 20:27, Brian Prangle 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 > <mailto: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 <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
