I truly love the level of detail we get "coming out of the woodwork" so that we
may have excellent real-life examples to share with one another (and +1 to one
another, too!)
To be brief about it (rare for me, I endeavor to get better): good examples,
discussion / dialog and sharing our
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 12:55 PM Kevin Kenny
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 1:11 PM stevea wrote:
> > The myriad variations of "name" (alt, loc, nat, old, reg, official,
> sorting, int...) show how complex this is. The issues go back many years
> and will likely continue well into the
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 12:09 PM stevea wrote:
> The myriad variations of "name" (alt, loc, nat, old, reg, official,
> sorting, int...) show how complex this is. The issues go back many years
> and will likely continue well into the future, indeed many participants in
> this/these thread(s) are
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 1:07 PM Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 1:01 PM Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Did you mean to use "old_name" instead of "alt_name"?
>
> When the locals keep using an old name for decades, without regard for
> official signage to the contrary, at what point does an
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 1:11 PM stevea wrote:
> The myriad variations of "name" (alt, loc, nat, old, reg, official, sorting,
> int...) show how complex this is. The issues go back many years and will
> likely continue well into the future, indeed many participants in this/these
> thread(s)
On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 8:40 PM Tod Fitch wrote:
> If I am looking at the map data correctly, it seem that at least some
> designated wilderness areas are excluded from the forest that they are in.
> For example the Chumash Wilderness [1] seems to have its border as an outer
> on the Los
The myriad variations of "name" (alt, loc, nat, old, reg, official, sorting,
int...) show how complex this is. The issues go back many years and will
likely continue well into the future, indeed many participants in this/these
thread(s) are authors of our wiki's name page.
Better documenting,
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 12:56 AM Greg Morgan wrote:
> Please don't remove the alt_name tags. They are useful and not that much
> of a distraction or an error For example, a new freeway was just renamed
> for a congress person that helped with many AZ transportation projects. I
> added the
Like some things in computer science / database searching / software-based
cartography, this feels like yet another "do our best to document, code,
data-enter and find what works / doesn't work, then lather-rinse-repeat." As
long as we document (in wiki, in the map, in practice) that we
stevea writes:
> Also, I find that "alt_name" works well for abbreviated county names,
> as in California in certain contexts, the name of a county without the
> word "county" appended unambiguously communicates a geography to
> someone. (As in "From this part of Amador (county), you'll have to
Tod Fitch writes:
> I’ve noticed that a number of counties in California and Arizona have
> what seems to be unneeded alt_name tags in their boundary
> relations. For example Pima County, Arizona has name=“Pima County” and
> alt_name=“Pima”. Same for Pinal County in Arizona and Riverside,
>
On December 25, 2019 at 11:46:47 PM PST Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> > new freeway was just renamed for a congress person
>
> In this case “official_name=“ with the whole congresspersons name would be
> good, keeping the commonly-used name in “name=“.
Minh and I earlier this year were
On Dec 26, 2019, at 12:52 AM, talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
> If I am looking at the map data correctly, it seem that at least some
> designated wilderness areas are excluded from the forest that they are in.
> For example the Chumash Wilderness [1] seems to have its border as an
In your case the name (Congressman Ed Pastor Freeway) is quite different than
the alt_name (South Mountain Freeway). I am not sure what the signage is on the
ground (I won’t be driving through there for another few months) but this is
what I’d expect the alt_name to be used for.
However it is
I would use rather short_name.
But I see no valid reason for removing then.
Have you alerted this active user that you
started conversation about his/her mapping?
26 Dec 2019, 02:25 by t...@fitchfamily.org:
> I’ve noticed that a number of counties in California and Arizona have what
> seems
15 matches
Mail list logo
