On 22 August 2013 18:57, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:
I am not sure what your issue was with highway=path etc, but do you mean
rationalising as in the sense of reducing the number of tags, thus losing
(subtle) distinctions? I can't see how that is the same as the phone number
Colin Smale wrote:
Calling the transformation from OSM data to international format
trivial does not do justice to the creativity of mappers when
entering phone numbers or to telecoms regulators when defining
numbering plans.
A quick gander at
I've been trying to map phone numbers in +44 style for businesses (where it
may be as useful as operator= as well as name=.
However, I normally ignore spacing because the concept of area code is dying.
I haven't even heard it being used for snob purposes recently (as signifying
the wrong side
On 23 August 2013 22:15, Paul Bivand paul.biv...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
However, I normally ignore spacing because the concept of area code is dying.
There is a secondary reason for spacing and that is that short term
memory can only cope with about 7 things at once, so it is a good idea
to
OpenStreetmap HADW wrote:
Whilst most London people don't realise that they can abbreviated
numbers, I believe it is still common to miss the area code, once you
get outside a director area (although that might just be a
generational thing, with older users less likely to be using mobile
Something I've noticed is that the British seem to be particularly bad
at entering phone numbers properly, in particular, more than half of
them have been entered in national format; even the Americans seem to
get this one right and so do other countries.
Other common problems are:
- the bogus
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:35 AM, OpenStreetmap HADW osmh...@gmail.comwrote:
- no delimiter (+442079460676)
- misplaced delimiter (+44 207 946 0676)
Aren't these unambiguous already?
Oliver
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
OpenStreetmap HADW wrote:
Incidentally, one common usage I do agree with, and which Ofcom seem
to use, is the space after the director exchange, as 79460676 is a bit
long to remember as one group, and there is a historical, and some
geographic, significance, in this split.
On 22 August 2013 08:43, Oliver Jowett oliver.jow...@gmail.com wrote:
- no delimiter (+442079460676)
- misplaced delimiter (+44 207 946 0676)
Aren't these unambiguous already?
They breach the existing guidelines, which call for the (UK usage)
area code to be delimited. In particular, in
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:01 AM, OpenStreetmap HADW osmh...@gmail.comwrote:
On 22 August 2013 08:43, Oliver Jowett oliver.jow...@gmail.com wrote:
- no delimiter (+442079460676)
- misplaced delimiter (+44 207 946 0676)
Aren't these unambiguous already?
They breach the existing
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_numbers_in_the_United_Kingdom:
For dialling the United Kingdom from overseas, Ofcom and ITU-T
recommendation E.123 states that numbers be written in the form:
Number Location
+44 20 London
+44 29 Cardiff
+44 113
OpenStreetmap HADW wrote:
In particular, in London, you can dial
this number as 00442079460676, 02079460676 or 79460676. On the other
hand, dialing it as 9460676 will fail.
I'd forgotten that particular reason for grouping the extra 7/8 differently!
Been 25 years since I moved out from
On 22/08/13 09:01, Lester Caine wrote:
Personally I still think of 0207 as Inner London and 0208 as Outer
London, but moving the 7/8 as part of the exchange sort of makes sense
these days.
Well you think incorrectly then, as that has not been the case for some
time, either in theory or in
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 08:35:17 +0100
OpenStreetmap HADW osmh...@gmail.com wrote:
My question is, given that I have good programming skills, and would
manipulate a local .osm file, for JOSM, rather than directly using the
API, are there likely to be any objections to my changing all London,
and
: -
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
From: Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk
Date: 22/08/2013 11:10AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Phone numbers in little England
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:31:49 +0100
Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
On 22/08/13 09:01, Lester Caine wrote:
Personally I still think of 0207 as Inner
-gb@openstreetmap.org
From: Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk
Date: 22/08/2013 11:10AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Phone numbers in little England
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:31:49 +0100
Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
On 22/08/13 09:01, Lester Caine wrote:
Personally I still think of 0207
On 22 August 2013 10:49, Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk wrote:
+1 for converting to international format
I wonder if there's any benefit in converting to the tel: URI 01protocol:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3966
(see also http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5341 )
--
Andy Mabbett
...@andystreet.me.uk wrote: -
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
From: Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk
Date: 22/08/2013 11:10AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Phone numbers in little England
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:31:49 +0100
Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
On 22/08/13 09:01, Lester Caine wrote
From: Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk
Date: 22/08/2013 11:10AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Phone numbers in little England
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:31:49 +0100
Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
On 22/08/13 09:01, Lester Caine wrote:
Personally I still think of 0207 as Inner London and 0208
...@andystreet.me.uk wrote: -
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
From: Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk
Date: 22/08/2013 11:10AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Phone numbers in little England
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:31:49 +0100
Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
On 22/08/13 09:01, Lester Caine wrote:
Personally
Street m...@andystreet.me.uk wrote: -
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
From: Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk
Date: 22/08/2013 11:10AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Phone numbers in little England
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:31:49 +0100
Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
On 22/08/13 09:01, Lester
meaningful sense,
you need Fareham, Gosport, Hedge End, Whiteley etc to all be in the 023
area.
Nick
-Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk wrote: -
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
From: Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk
Date: 22/08/2013 11:10AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Phone numbers in little
Colin Smale wrote:
Someone needs to stick up for the data consumers; it's not *all*
about the mappers, and anyway most mappers are not so lazy
that they can't be bothered to conform to conventions.
As a data consumer I wish people would stop sticking up for me and my kin!
IMX more
I am not sure what your issue was with highway=path etc, but do you mean
rationalising as in the sense of reducing the number of tags, thus
losing (subtle) distinctions? I can't see how that is the same as the
phone number format issue.
Calling the transformation from OSM data to international
As the NSA clearly don't process their data according to E.164 (otherwise
how could they confuse Washington DC area code with Egypt), I think we can
skip it too!
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:
**
I am not sure what your issue was with highway=path
On 2013-08-22 20:00, sk53.osm wrote:
As the NSA clearly don't process their data according to E.164
(otherwise how could they confuse Washington DC area code with Egypt),
I think we can skip it too!
Yes well they have a habit of being rather parochial in their view of
the world. Everyone
26 matches
Mail list logo
