Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Phil Wyatt]

Many thanks for doing this update

Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: tabjsina  
Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2022 11:26 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

So all of Australia with the exception of Victoria is now fixed to use
capitalized state abbreviations. As mentioned before, Victoria was the state
that had a much closer (though still not entirely close) split between
"Victoria" and "VIC", which leaves a whopping 32k addresses that need to be
updated to "VIC".

While it is entirely possible (and easy) to do this via maproulette, I've
removed the challenge as someone had pointed out to me that 32k individual
changes might be a bit much as far as changesets go.

Are there any concerns with me doing this as a single batch change?

Thanks,
Justin


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[tabjsina]

Thanks all for the guidance here. I've uploaded the change (required 4 
in the end, as there was a 1 change limit per changeset). Here they are:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117749014
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117749015
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117749022
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117749024

-Justin

On 23/2/2022 7:39 am, Ewen Hill wrote:

Hi Justin,
    I see a single batch change as the preferred route as it has no 
logic other than swapping the values of Victoria and VIC and there is no 
reason why you would want to revert this at all.


Thanks for fixing this anomaly Australia wide and the time you have 
spent on this.


Ewen

On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 08:26, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:


Can't see it being an issue?

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 22:30, tabjsina mailto:sinatabr...@gmail.com>> wrote:

So all of Australia with the exception of Victoria is now fixed
to use
capitalized state abbreviations. As mentioned before, Victoria
was the
state that had a much closer (though still not entirely close)
split
between "Victoria" and "VIC", which leaves a whopping 32k
addresses that
need to be updated to "VIC".

While it is entirely possible (and easy) to do this via
maproulette,
I've removed the challenge as someone had pointed out to me that
32k
individual changes might be a bit much as far as changesets go.

Are there any concerns with me doing this as a single batch change?

Thanks,
Justin


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au




--
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Ewen Hill]

Hi Justin,
   I see a single batch change as the preferred route as it has no logic
other than swapping the values of Victoria and VIC and there is no reason
why you would want to revert this at all.

Thanks for fixing this anomaly Australia wide and the time you have spent
on this.

Ewen

On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 08:26, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Can't see it being an issue?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 22:30, tabjsina  wrote:
>
>> So all of Australia with the exception of Victoria is now fixed to use
>> capitalized state abbreviations. As mentioned before, Victoria was the
>> state that had a much closer (though still not entirely close) split
>> between "Victoria" and "VIC", which leaves a whopping 32k addresses that
>> need to be updated to "VIC".
>>
>> While it is entirely possible (and easy) to do this via maproulette,
>> I've removed the challenge as someone had pointed out to me that 32k
>> individual changes might be a bit much as far as changesets go.
>>
>> Are there any concerns with me doing this as a single batch change?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Can't see it being an issue?

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 22:30, tabjsina  wrote:

> So all of Australia with the exception of Victoria is now fixed to use
> capitalized state abbreviations. As mentioned before, Victoria was the
> state that had a much closer (though still not entirely close) split
> between "Victoria" and "VIC", which leaves a whopping 32k addresses that
> need to be updated to "VIC".
>
> While it is entirely possible (and easy) to do this via maproulette,
> I've removed the challenge as someone had pointed out to me that 32k
> individual changes might be a bit much as far as changesets go.
>
> Are there any concerns with me doing this as a single batch change?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[cleary]

I think it is still usual practice to have a label node as part of the relation 
for the boundaries of each suburb. Ideally this label node is placed at the 
business or residential centre of the area even if it is not the geographical 
centre.  For example see Hillgrove NSW (near Armidale)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6063586

In this instance the activity "centre" of the hamlet is near one edge of the 
administrative boundaries. I see the placement of the node as improving the 
quality of the information in the map.






On Thu, 3 Feb 2022, at 1:58 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 12:16, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
>> 
>> Assuming the suburb / locality boundaries have been mapped (which they 
>> should not be Australia wide from an import), then data consumers can infer 
>> the rest of the attributes. Check out Nominatim, 
>> https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=N=6496603926=place
>>  it shows the inherited attributes like suburb, postcode, state.
>
> With regard to this, if we're mapping & spot a suburb node still 
> showing eg 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-27.46821/153.09090 (only 
> visible in edit?), is it OK / should we delete it?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 12:16, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

>
> Assuming the suburb / locality boundaries have been mapped (which they
> should not be Australia wide from an import), then data consumers can infer
> the rest of the attributes. Check out Nominatim,
> https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=N=6496603926=place
> it shows the inherited attributes like suburb, postcode, state.
>

With regard to this, if we're mapping & spot a suburb node still showing eg
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-27.46821/153.09090 (only visible
in edit?), is it OK / should we delete it?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[tabjsina]

Since only Northern Territory, Queensland and Victoria remain with 
inconsistencies, I only created those challenges. Will add other states 
if new changes creep in with a different format.


Victoria - https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/24424
Queensland - https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/24425
Northern Territory - https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/24426

-Justin

On 31/1/2022 3:42 pm, tabjsina wrote:

Good call - will split it up sometime in the next few days

On 31/1/2022 12:36 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 14:18, tabjsina 
> wrote:



    Thanks all - let me know if you have any concerns or suggestions


Probably easiest, & less messy, to set several up, one for each state 
- it'd be OK to include ACT in NSW, or Tas in Vic Oops! : TAS in VIC :-)


Thanks

Graeme


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 14:18, tabjsina  wrote:

>
> Thanks all - let me know if you have any concerns or suggestions
>

Probably easiest, & less messy, to set several up, one for each state -
it'd be OK to include ACT in NSW, or Tas in Vic Oops! : TAS in VIC :-)

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[tabjsina]

As a follow-up, here it is - https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/24307

Seems like there is a limit to how many get loaded at a time, so the 
initial batch is NSW and NT only, but more should load up after the set 
is cleared


Thanks all - let me know if you have any concerns or suggestions

On 29/1/2022 8:56 pm, tabjsina wrote:

Hello,

I'm new to this mailing list (and mailing lists in general), apologies 
if I'm doing it wrong :)


I've recently made a maproulette challenge which asked users to confirm 
updating any populating addr:state value in Western Australia to "WA", 
if it was something else. Previously, about 90% were already "WA", 9% 
were a variation like "Western Australia", "wa" (lowercase), and the 
remaining were something completely wrong, like "AU" or a suburb/city name.


Now that WA is all fixed, I was looking at other states, and noticed 
that, while most states also had a similar 90% rate of using acronym, 
NSW and moreso VIC had a closer split between the acronym and the full 
name.


Before I go ahead with setting up this maproulette challenge for the 
rest of the country, I wanted to get some thoughts on whether it makes 
sense to standardize around using acronyms (WA, ACT, NSW, NT, QLD, VIC, 
SA, TAS), full name (Western Australia, Australian Capital Territory, 
etc), or whether we should not be trying to standardise this value at all.


Thanks,
Justin




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Phil Wyatt]

Thanks Folks,

 

For me its also about correcting invalid information that is currently in OSM. 
I have found cases where the suburb has been entered as a city, the city as a 
suburb, the state as a province, AU as the state etc. I suspect there may be an 
app or two that may not place the attributes in the correct fields (I will 
check this later on)

 

I would certainly be happy NOT to have both city and suburb (where there are 
legitimate answers to both) as I suspect that can be very confusing especially 
if displayed in apps etc for tourists. 

 

Cheers - Phil

 

 

 

From: Andrew Harvey  
Sent: Monday, 31 January 2022 1:16 PM
To: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
Cc: OSM-Au ; tabjsina 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

 

 

 

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 09:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

& to clarify, we only need to include the street address for anything, & not 
the suburb / town / city?

 

Assuming the suburb / locality boundaries have been mapped (which they should 
not be Australia wide from an import), then data consumers can infer the rest 
of the attributes. Check out Nominatim, 
https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=N 
<https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=N=6496603926=place>
 =6496603926=place it shows the inherited attributes like suburb, 
postcode, state.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Michael Collinson]

It is safer putting in the street name. Nominatim fills in street from 
the street physically closest to the addr tag, which is not always 
correct. Sarah is aware and looking at measures to improve that - for 
example by looking at nearby street numbers for sequentiallity - but I 
doubt it could be 100% reliable.


Personally, and I stress personally, I also favour putting in the 
suburb. Theoretically redundant, particularly in Australia where 
addressing rules are well-cut and consistent. But more democratic to the 
small app creator by giving them an alternative to having to import and 
deal with boundary relations, especially on offline mobile apps, I speak 
from experience and so perhaps also bias. Perhaps another 5-10 years of 
useful life in the db.


Even I do not systematically add state during ground surveys, it much 
more likely to be searching for a pub in or near Seaford than Victoria.


Mike

On 31/1/22 2:17 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 12:16, Andrew Harvey  
wrote:


Check out Nominatim,

https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=N=6496603926=place


it shows the inherited attributes like suburb, postcode, state.


& by the look at it, in built-up areas at least, it will even ID the 
street name!


So we only have to list the street number? :-)

Thanks

Graeme

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 12:16, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> Check out Nominatim,
> https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=N=6496603926=place
> it shows the inherited attributes like suburb, postcode, state.
>

& by the look at it, in built-up areas at least, it will even ID the street
name!

So we only have to list the street number? :-)

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 09:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> & to clarify, we only need to include the street address for anything, &
> not the suburb / town / city?
>

Assuming the suburb / locality boundaries have been mapped (which they
should not be Australia wide from an import), then data consumers can infer
the rest of the attributes. Check out Nominatim,
https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=N=6496603926=place
it shows the inherited attributes like suburb, postcode, state.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 23:17, tabjsina  wrote:

> It looks like Qld makes up ~3700 address states and QLD is at 15000
> ("Queensland" is ~1000 as a comparison).
>
> I'm thinking I'll make an adjustment in the Queensland code to skip
> cases that are "Qld", but otherwise (For complete errors, and
> "Queensland" cases), I'll recommend the more popular format "QLD". Since
> you live there Graeme, how does this plan sound?
>

That's fine - I might have to change the way I do things! :-)

& to clarify, we only need to include the street address for anything, &
not the suburb / town / city?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[tabjsina]

It looks like Qld makes up ~3700 address states and QLD is at 15000 
("Queensland" is ~1000 as a comparison).


I'm thinking I'll make an adjustment in the Queensland code to skip 
cases that are "Qld", but otherwise (For complete errors, and 
"Queensland" cases), I'll recommend the more popular format "QLD". Since 
you live there Graeme, how does this plan sound?


Tasmania is already consistently TAS throughout (with the exception of 
exactly 3 errors where someone put the street name in that field)


Victoria similarly has <500 cases of Vic versus 45k VIC and 35k 
Victoria, so I will also just move those few Vic's towards the more 
standard VIC.


-Justin

On 30/1/2022 7:30 am, Phil Wyatt wrote:

Hi Folks,

The main reason I have used capitals in the state is because of Address 
Presentation Standards with Australia Post


https://auspost.com.au/content/dam/auspost_corp/media/documents/australia-post-addressing-standards-1999.pdf 
<https://auspost.com.au/content/dam/auspost_corp/media/documents/australia-post-addressing-standards-1999.pdf>


Having said that, I don’t use capitals for suburbs!

Cheers - Phil

*From:*Graeme Fitzpatrick 


*Sent:* Sunday, 30 January 2022 10:10 AM
*To:* tabjsina 
*Cc:* OSM-Au 
*Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

G'day Justin & welcome!

Asking any question that you've got is quite definitely the best way of 
doing things - thanks!


I agree fully about the acronyms rather than spelling the name in full, 
with the exception that I personally use Qld rather than QLD.


If I was down there, I'd probably also use Tas, but all capitals for the 
others.


I don't think there's any hard & fast rules for capitalisation though?

Thanks

Graeme

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 00:32, tabjsina 
<mailto:sinatabr...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Hello,

I'm new to this mailing list (and mailing lists in general), apologies
if I'm doing it wrong :)

I've recently made a maproulette challenge which asked users to confirm
updating any populating addr:state value in Western Australia to "WA",
if it was something else. Previously, about 90% were already "WA", 9%
were a variation like "Western Australia", "wa" (lowercase), and the
remaining were something completely wrong, like "AU" or a
suburb/city name.

Now that WA is all fixed, I was looking at other states, and noticed
that, while most states also had a similar 90% rate of using acronym,
NSW and moreso VIC had a closer split between the acronym and the
full name.

Before I go ahead with setting up this maproulette challenge for the
rest of the country, I wanted to get some thoughts on whether it makes
sense to standardize around using acronyms (WA, ACT, NSW, NT, QLD, VIC,
SA, TAS), full name (Western Australia, Australian Capital Territory,
etc), or whether we should not be trying to standardise this value
at all.

Thanks,
Justin


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
<mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au>


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 16:53, tabjsina  wrote:

> In this case I intend to specifically only update tags that already have
> a state field defined, rather than populating the empty ones. Andrew, do
> you think that adjusting the existing tag values to match the VIC
> majority would go against the coming data import plans you mentioned?
>

That's fine, anyone can still add them manually for new addresses or you
can tidy up existing ones, the discussion only meant that I won't be doing
a bulk addition or upgrade of addr:state as part of the import. Any
existing addr:state tags are ignored as far as the import code goes so no
issue there.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[tabjsina]

In this case I intend to specifically only update tags that already have 
a state field defined, rather than populating the empty ones. Andrew, do 
you think that adjusting the existing tag values to match the VIC 
majority would go against the coming data import plans you mentioned?


-Justin

On 30/1/2022 1:09 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
Many people would be mapping because iD has a template which includes 
state, so people see an empty field and try to enter more complete 
information. Many people new to OSM don't know that addresses inherit 
state and suburb from the existing boundaries.


 From the VIC address import work there was opposition to including 
addr:state so this hasn't been included (I'm hoping to finalise that 
with the final import files and import date very soon), and it was 
proposed removing the suburb and state fields from the address template 
in iD. Also in that thread there were a few reasons given for also 
including the state/suburb tags (easier to obtain this info when 
querying specific addresses, saves further processing work).


On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 10:30, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au 
> wrote:


Hi,

Is there any advantage to tagging addresses with the state when the
state is already well defined in OSM and the state for a given address
location can be obtained from existing map data?

I'm not criticising Justin's work - improved consistency is good. I'm
asking the open ended question: is there a better way of recording this
data that avoids duplication?

Regards,
Kim

On 29/1/22 23:56, tabjsina wrote:
 > Hello,
 >
 > I'm new to this mailing list (and mailing lists in general),
apologies
 > if I'm doing it wrong :)
 >
 > I've recently made a maproulette challenge which asked users to
 > confirm updating any populating addr:state value in Western
Australia
 > to "WA", if it was something else. Previously, about 90% were
already
 > "WA", 9% were a variation like "Western Australia", "wa"
(lowercase),
 > and the remaining were something completely wrong, like "AU" or a
 > suburb/city name.
 >
 > Now that WA is all fixed, I was looking at other states, and noticed
 > that, while most states also had a similar 90% rate of using
acronym,
 > NSW and moreso VIC had a closer split between the acronym and the
full
 > name.
 >
 > Before I go ahead with setting up this maproulette challenge for the
 > rest of the country, I wanted to get some thoughts on whether it
makes
 > sense to standardize around using acronyms (WA, ACT, NSW, NT, QLD,
 > VIC, SA, TAS), full name (Western Australia, Australian Capital
 > Territory, etc), or whether we should not be trying to standardise
 > this value at all.
 >
 > Thanks,
 > Justin
 >
 >
 > ___
 > Talk-au mailing list
 > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

 > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[tabjsina]

In this case I intend to specifically only update tags that already have 
a state field defined, rather than populating the empty ones. Andrew, do 
you think that adjusting the existing tag values to match the VIC 
majority would go against the coming data import plans you mentioned?


-Justin

On 30/1/2022 1:09 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
Many people would be mapping because iD has a template which includes 
state, so people see an empty field and try to enter more complete 
information. Many people new to OSM don't know that addresses inherit 
state and suburb from the existing boundaries.


 From the VIC address import work there was opposition to including 
addr:state so this hasn't been included (I'm hoping to finalise that 
with the final import files and import date very soon), and it was 
proposed removing the suburb and state fields from the address template 
in iD. Also in that thread there were a few reasons given for also 
including the state/suburb tags (easier to obtain this info when 
querying specific addresses, saves further processing work).


On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 10:30, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au 
> wrote:


Hi,

Is there any advantage to tagging addresses with the state when the
state is already well defined in OSM and the state for a given address
location can be obtained from existing map data?

I'm not criticising Justin's work - improved consistency is good. I'm
asking the open ended question: is there a better way of recording this
data that avoids duplication?

Regards,
Kim

On 29/1/22 23:56, tabjsina wrote:
 > Hello,
 >
 > I'm new to this mailing list (and mailing lists in general),
apologies
 > if I'm doing it wrong :)
 >
 > I've recently made a maproulette challenge which asked users to
 > confirm updating any populating addr:state value in Western
Australia
 > to "WA", if it was something else. Previously, about 90% were
already
 > "WA", 9% were a variation like "Western Australia", "wa"
(lowercase),
 > and the remaining were something completely wrong, like "AU" or a
 > suburb/city name.
 >
 > Now that WA is all fixed, I was looking at other states, and noticed
 > that, while most states also had a similar 90% rate of using
acronym,
 > NSW and moreso VIC had a closer split between the acronym and the
full
 > name.
 >
 > Before I go ahead with setting up this maproulette challenge for the
 > rest of the country, I wanted to get some thoughts on whether it
makes
 > sense to standardize around using acronyms (WA, ACT, NSW, NT, QLD,
 > VIC, SA, TAS), full name (Western Australia, Australian Capital
 > Territory, etc), or whether we should not be trying to standardise
 > this value at all.
 >
 > Thanks,
 > Justin
 >
 >
 > ___
 > Talk-au mailing list
 > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

 > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Andrew Harvey]

Many people would be mapping because iD has a template which includes
state, so people see an empty field and try to enter more complete
information. Many people new to OSM don't know that addresses inherit state
and suburb from the existing boundaries.

>From the VIC address import work there was opposition to including
addr:state so this hasn't been included (I'm hoping to finalise that with
the final import files and import date very soon), and it was proposed
removing the suburb and state fields from the address template in iD. Also
in that thread there were a few reasons given for also including the
state/suburb tags (easier to obtain this info when querying specific
addresses, saves further processing work).

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 10:30, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Is there any advantage to tagging addresses with the state when the
> state is already well defined in OSM and the state for a given address
> location can be obtained from existing map data?
>
> I'm not criticising Justin's work - improved consistency is good. I'm
> asking the open ended question: is there a better way of recording this
> data that avoids duplication?
>
> Regards,
> Kim
>
> On 29/1/22 23:56, tabjsina wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm new to this mailing list (and mailing lists in general), apologies
> > if I'm doing it wrong :)
> >
> > I've recently made a maproulette challenge which asked users to
> > confirm updating any populating addr:state value in Western Australia
> > to "WA", if it was something else. Previously, about 90% were already
> > "WA", 9% were a variation like "Western Australia", "wa" (lowercase),
> > and the remaining were something completely wrong, like "AU" or a
> > suburb/city name.
> >
> > Now that WA is all fixed, I was looking at other states, and noticed
> > that, while most states also had a similar 90% rate of using acronym,
> > NSW and moreso VIC had a closer split between the acronym and the full
> > name.
> >
> > Before I go ahead with setting up this maproulette challenge for the
> > rest of the country, I wanted to get some thoughts on whether it makes
> > sense to standardize around using acronyms (WA, ACT, NSW, NT, QLD,
> > VIC, SA, TAS), full name (Western Australia, Australian Capital
> > Territory, etc), or whether we should not be trying to standardise
> > this value at all.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Folks,

 

The main reason I have used capitals in the state is because of Address 
Presentation Standards with Australia Post

 

https://auspost.com.au/content/dam/auspost_corp/media/documents/australia-post-addressing-standards-1999.pdf

 

Having said that, I don’t use capitals for suburbs!

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick  
Sent: Sunday, 30 January 2022 10:10 AM
To: tabjsina 
Cc: OSM-Au 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

 

G'day Justin & welcome!

 

Asking any question that you've got is quite definitely the best way of doing 
things - thanks!

 

I agree fully about the acronyms rather than spelling the name in full, with 
the exception that I personally use Qld rather than QLD.

 

If I was down there, I'd probably also use Tas, but all capitals for the 
others. 

 

I don't think there's any hard & fast rules for capitalisation though?

 

Thanks

 

Graeme

 

 

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 00:32, tabjsina mailto:sinatabr...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Hello,

I'm new to this mailing list (and mailing lists in general), apologies 
if I'm doing it wrong :)

I've recently made a maproulette challenge which asked users to confirm 
updating any populating addr:state value in Western Australia to "WA", 
if it was something else. Previously, about 90% were already "WA", 9% 
were a variation like "Western Australia", "wa" (lowercase), and the 
remaining were something completely wrong, like "AU" or a suburb/city name.

Now that WA is all fixed, I was looking at other states, and noticed 
that, while most states also had a similar 90% rate of using acronym, 
NSW and moreso VIC had a closer split between the acronym and the full name.

Before I go ahead with setting up this maproulette challenge for the 
rest of the country, I wanted to get some thoughts on whether it makes 
sense to standardize around using acronyms (WA, ACT, NSW, NT, QLD, VIC, 
SA, TAS), full name (Western Australia, Australian Capital Territory, 
etc), or whether we should not be trying to standardise this value at all.

Thanks,
Justin


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org> 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

Hi,

Is there any advantage to tagging addresses with the state when the 
state is already well defined in OSM and the state for a given address 
location can be obtained from existing map data?


I'm not criticising Justin's work - improved consistency is good. I'm 
asking the open ended question: is there a better way of recording this 
data that avoids duplication?


Regards,
Kim

On 29/1/22 23:56, tabjsina wrote:

Hello,

I'm new to this mailing list (and mailing lists in general), apologies 
if I'm doing it wrong :)


I've recently made a maproulette challenge which asked users to 
confirm updating any populating addr:state value in Western Australia 
to "WA", if it was something else. Previously, about 90% were already 
"WA", 9% were a variation like "Western Australia", "wa" (lowercase), 
and the remaining were something completely wrong, like "AU" or a 
suburb/city name.


Now that WA is all fixed, I was looking at other states, and noticed 
that, while most states also had a similar 90% rate of using acronym, 
NSW and moreso VIC had a closer split between the acronym and the full 
name.


Before I go ahead with setting up this maproulette challenge for the 
rest of the country, I wanted to get some thoughts on whether it makes 
sense to standardize around using acronyms (WA, ACT, NSW, NT, QLD, 
VIC, SA, TAS), full name (Western Australia, Australian Capital 
Territory, etc), or whether we should not be trying to standardise 
this value at all.


Thanks,
Justin


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

G'day Justin & welcome!

Asking any question that you've got is quite definitely the best way of
doing things - thanks!

I agree fully about the acronyms rather than spelling the name in full,
with the exception that I personally use Qld rather than QLD.

If I was down there, I'd probably also use Tas, but all capitals for the
others.

I don't think there's any hard & fast rules for capitalisation though?

Thanks

Graeme


On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 00:32, tabjsina  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm new to this mailing list (and mailing lists in general), apologies
> if I'm doing it wrong :)
>
> I've recently made a maproulette challenge which asked users to confirm
> updating any populating addr:state value in Western Australia to "WA",
> if it was something else. Previously, about 90% were already "WA", 9%
> were a variation like "Western Australia", "wa" (lowercase), and the
> remaining were something completely wrong, like "AU" or a suburb/city name.
>
> Now that WA is all fixed, I was looking at other states, and noticed
> that, while most states also had a similar 90% rate of using acronym,
> NSW and moreso VIC had a closer split between the acronym and the full
> name.
>
> Before I go ahead with setting up this maproulette challenge for the
> rest of the country, I wanted to get some thoughts on whether it makes
> sense to standardize around using acronyms (WA, ACT, NSW, NT, QLD, VIC,
> SA, TAS), full name (Western Australia, Australian Capital Territory,
> etc), or whether we should not be trying to standardise this value at all.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[Phil Wyatt]

Hi Justin,

I am all for standardisation, especially as many folks copy what they see on
other objects so if there is a consistent approach they learn much quicker.

I say, go for it!

Cheers - Phil

-Original Message-
From: tabjsina  
Sent: Saturday, 29 January 2022 11:56 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

Hello,

I'm new to this mailing list (and mailing lists in general), apologies if
I'm doing it wrong :)

I've recently made a maproulette challenge which asked users to confirm
updating any populating addr:state value in Western Australia to "WA", if it
was something else. Previously, about 90% were already "WA", 9% were a
variation like "Western Australia", "wa" (lowercase), and the remaining were
something completely wrong, like "AU" or a suburb/city name.

Now that WA is all fixed, I was looking at other states, and noticed that,
while most states also had a similar 90% rate of using acronym, NSW and
moreso VIC had a closer split between the acronym and the full name.

Before I go ahead with setting up this maproulette challenge for the rest of
the country, I wanted to get some thoughts on whether it makes sense to
standardize around using acronyms (WA, ACT, NSW, NT, QLD, VIC, SA, TAS),
full name (Western Australia, Australian Capital Territory, etc), or whether
we should not be trying to standardise this value at all.

Thanks,
Justin


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Consistent addr:state format?

[tabjsina]

Hello,

I'm new to this mailing list (and mailing lists in general), apologies 
if I'm doing it wrong :)


I've recently made a maproulette challenge which asked users to confirm 
updating any populating addr:state value in Western Australia to "WA", 
if it was something else. Previously, about 90% were already "WA", 9% 
were a variation like "Western Australia", "wa" (lowercase), and the 
remaining were something completely wrong, like "AU" or a suburb/city name.


Now that WA is all fixed, I was looking at other states, and noticed 
that, while most states also had a similar 90% rate of using acronym, 
NSW and moreso VIC had a closer split between the acronym and the full name.


Before I go ahead with setting up this maproulette challenge for the 
rest of the country, I wanted to get some thoughts on whether it makes 
sense to standardize around using acronyms (WA, ACT, NSW, NT, QLD, VIC, 
SA, TAS), full name (Western Australia, Australian Capital Territory, 
etc), or whether we should not be trying to standardise this value at all.


Thanks,
Justin


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au