On 8 April 2010 00:13, Dale Puch <dale.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > Personally I like the 3 field, or event the 4 field storage of the name. > Yes that means there is not a single field that has the full name, but I do > not think a lookup and concat of 4 fields vs 1 field is much different in an > indexed database. Perhaps a DB admin can shed some light on the best > approach from a design and system resources standpoint. > > This may be a problem for apps, but if it is the best way to manage the > data, the apps just need to be changed. And it would not be that hard to > make the programming change if I can figure out how to do it with my limited > knowledge. > > Some of the examples comma separated into the 4 field format: > South, ,1000 East, Street > ,State, Park, Street > ,Saint, Tropez, Street
Paul Johnson mentioned on IRC today the case of East Doctor Martin Luther King, Junior Boulevard, which wouldn't work with this schema and I don't even want to imagine how the schema would be adapted to the 200 other languages used in the database :) I think the tag like name= should really be consistent so tools can rely on it without adapting to every single country. As for the different segments of the name, there are already fields for them which we inherited from TIGER, you'll find the "middle" of the name is unmodified in the tiger:base_name= tag, the cardinal direction in tiger:directional_prefix= and tiger:directional_suffix and the feature type (Street, Ave etc) in type:name_type. Cheers _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
