2009/10/6 Gervase Markham <gerv-gm...@gerv.net>: > On 05/10/09 11:04, Dave Stubbs wrote: >> As the person whose first came up with a no-names map for London >> (well, actually it was a named map of London, turned into a nonames >> map on SteveC's suggestion), I have an *official leadership >> announcement* to make: >> >> There shall be no tagging of unnamed roads. It is not important. They >> show up on the no-names map -- big deal -- its a mapping aid not a >> holy grail of "there shall be no highlighted roads". Just deal with >> it. > > So why did you make the noname map in the first place, if it's not > important? Have you changed your mind about its usefulness?
It sounds like he made it to see which roads needed surveying to acquire their name, however I'm still confused why people use noname=yes when the street does have a name but not a street sign, as I posted before there is actually a few streets near here on the golf course which really aren't named, the buildings a just unit numbers. Anything without a street sign should be reported to someone in local government, they may not be aware that their sign has been damaged/destroyed, and to ask them for the name, there is 2 streets with vandalised signs I keep meaning to annoy council about here. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
