andrzej zaborowski <balr...@gmail.com> writes: > On 9 April 2010 15:06, Matthias Julius <li...@julius-net.net> wrote: >> Val Kartchner <val...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 12:23 -0400, Richard Welty wrote: >>>> i don't think anyone would argue with this. it's why having a bot >>>> rampage through >>>> "fixing" things is probably a Real Bad Idea unless it's extremely well >>>> thought out >>>> and comprehensively tested beforehand. >>> >>> While I didn't like what the bot was doing (at the time), >> >> What was the bot doing? >> >>> I don't thing "rampage" is the correct word to use. That implies >>> malice, which wasn't what was attempted. However, it did have a >>> beneficial side effect: this topic. ;-) >> >> In the special case of TIGER data there is a tag >> tiger:name_type=Rd|Ct|Dr|... >> >> I would have thought it should be fairly save to reconstruct the name >> from the tiger:name_* tags while expanding tiger:name_type - IF the >> name is still the original one. > > Except for a few caveats the bot follows the TIGER documentation and > expands everything listed there (taking into account the suffix/prefix > requirements), it only touches name and name_1, 2 and so on, leaving > alone other tags. I did a dry run on a piece of Canada and the > ruleset applies pretty well there too, the streets there were from > Geobase.
But, I think it is probably safer to not parse the name and instead reassemble the name from the (expanded) tiger:name_* tags Matthias _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us