Re: [Tagging] Use of old_name (was Re: Mapping deforestation)
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 19:07, Marc Gemis wrote: > totally off-topic: > Indeed :-) > I know plenty of people that cannot do that without GPS, When we were talking about GPSs a few years ago, a mate was telling a story that one of the ladies he works with didn't show up for work one morning, with no warning or contact. Tried to ring her at home but no answer. They were getting a bit concerned when she showed up, about 3 hours late & quite flustered. When they asked what was wrong, she said that when she went out to her car, her GPS wouldn't work, so she couldn't figure out how to get to work, so finished up having to catch a bus. She'd been working there for 5 years ... :-) Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use of old_name (was Re: Mapping deforestation)
> > If I decide to meet with a friend AGAIN in front of Whizzo, we both > > already know where it is. > > congratulations if you ever need gps to go to a place where you have > already been (I wonder in this case why commercial gps have a "go home" > shortcut since everyone has already been there) > totally off-topic: I know plenty of people that cannot do that without GPS, including myself. Can you drive without GPS to any destination that you have visited the last 20 years? I can't, especially not when I drove there following the GPS. For example, I won't be able to drive without a map/GPS to any my holiday destinations, even not the one from last year. I cannot remember all the turns we made during a 1000 km trip. Some people cannot navigate back home from any town center where they have not been before without using your GPS, especially when there are a lot of one-way streets, so the trip back is different. m. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use of old_name (was Re: Mapping deforestation)
Sometimes a feature is so famous that people continues to use its name to call the place even after it have been removed. For instance one would still told their friends let's meet up next to where the McDonald's was located. Or how transportation companies are still telling people "This bus terminate at Daimaru department store" even though the particular store was closed almost a quarter century ago. As long as people are still using it, then it should be considered "current" and be mapped on OSM, even when the feature itself have already ceased to exists. 2019年3月13日 05:58 於 "Martin Koppenhoefer" 寫道： sent from a phone > On 12. Mar 2019, at 16:15, Phake Nick wrote: > > It would probably be more appropriate to use lifecycle prefix if a shop have beeb replaced by another shop. For example name=KFC+was:name=McDonald's this is really not a suitable information for osm. We are interested in the current state. You might find the former situation if you look at old data. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use of old_name (was Re: Mapping deforestation)
Le 12.03.19 à 13:35, Paul Allen a écrit : > On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 12:17, Marc Gemis wrote: > What if some friends say we'll meet next year again in front of the > Whizzo. > > If I decide to meet with a friend AGAIN in front of Whizzo, we both > already know where it is. congratulations if you ever need gps to go to a place where you have already been (I wonder in this case why commercial gps have a "go home" shortcut since everyone has already been there) > I also recall you saying that you primarily used old_name > for the benefit of other mappers, to prevent them making changes > based on outdated information. I think you mix the opinion of 2 different Marc :) that is my use of old_name, maybe not's Marc Gemis's use. > note=* can be used to also say why > the name changed (such as change of use). note is used to transmit information between mappers. the fact that a business has closed or changed is also useful for the end user. moreover, I find that having to put notes to explain tags is like saying that the tag schema is not clear enough. there is even at least one QA tool that allows you to search for/display tag note=* to see if they should not be transformed into a tag... I have converted many times. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use of old_name (was Re: Mapping deforestation)
sent from a phone > On 12. Mar 2019, at 16:15, Phake Nick wrote: > > It would probably be more appropriate to use lifecycle prefix if a shop have > beeb replaced by another shop. For example name=KFC+was:name=McDonald's this is really not a suitable information for osm. We are interested in the current state. You might find the former situation if you look at old data. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use of old_name (was Re: Mapping deforestation)
It would probably be more appropriate to use lifecycle prefix if a shop have beeb replaced by another shop. For example name=KFC+was:name=McDonald's ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use of old_name (was Re: Mapping deforestation)
Am Di., 12. März 2019 um 13:17 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis : > What if some friends say we'll meet next year again in front of the Whizzo. > In the meantime, the Whizzo closes and is replaced with a restaurant > Eatwell. > If they can then search for the old name it's useful, because they > might not be overly familiar with the area and don't know the place > has changed. > They will also see the new name and the new function within the tags. > So they now know they have to meet in front of a restaurant now. > to me, the tag "old_name" means the old name of what is mapped, a name that was once in use for this "thing" and is now commonly replaced by a different "name". If there once was a restaurant Whizzo, which closed or moved away and now there is an Eatwell, then for me "Whizzo" is not generally the old_name of the Eatwell (it would be if Whizzo at some time decided to rebrand itself as Eatwell or it could be if the restaurant basically looked the same and only the name (and maybe operator) changed). old_name may be clearer for place names, where it is often not in question that it is about the same place (e.g. Chemnitz -> Karl-Marx-Stadt -> Chemnitz couldn't find traces of old_name in this case though) while most of the restaurant tags refer to the service and operating business. It may also be useful for subway stations or renamed streets (you may even find old street signs, especially if they are engraved into building walls they will typically not be "scratched over"). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use of old_name (was Re: Mapping deforestation)
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 12:17, Marc Gemis wrote: > What if some friends say we'll meet next year again in front of the Whizzo. > In the meantime, the Whizzo closes and is replaced with a restaurant > Eatwell. > If they can then search for the old name it's useful, because they > might not be overly familiar with the area and don't know the place > has changed. > Logic error detected! If I decide to meet with a friend AGAIN in front of Whizzo, we both already know where it is. If I decide to meet with a friend next year at somewhere we have never been, the Whizzo restaurant and it's now a motorcycle shop, maybe it's better we know that Whizzo no longer exists than we both decide it must still be a restaurant because old_name. I take your point, though, there are edge cases either way. But I also recall you saying that you primarily used old_name for the benefit of other mappers, to prevent them making changes based on outdated information. BTW, this is of course if you use Nominatim. OsmAnd, Magic Earth etc, > do not search on old_name AFAIK. > So old_name isn't useful to people using those tools, anyway. Which means there's no reason to use old_name instead of note. I'm not persuaded it's useful to use old_name the way you do. Particularly when old_name merely indicates a change of name but note=* can be used to also say why the name changed (such as change of use). -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Use of old_name (was Re: Mapping deforestation)
What if some friends say we'll meet next year again in front of the Whizzo. In the meantime, the Whizzo closes and is replaced with a restaurant Eatwell. If they can then search for the old name it's useful, because they might not be overly familiar with the area and don't know the place has changed. They will also see the new name and the new function within the tags. So they now know they have to meet in front of a restaurant now. BTW, this is of course if you use Nominatim. OsmAnd, Magic Earth etc, do not search on old_name AFAIK. So for me, the old_name seems useful, even though the representation by some renderers (Nominatim in this case) might not be perfect. m. On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:36 PM Paul Allen wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 00:51, marc marc wrote: > >> When one shop is replaced by another, I always keep the old name with >> old_name even if no one else uses it to designate the new store. the >> primary purpose is to prevent someone from re-encoding the old store >> with an older source than mine. > > > I do that with a note because Nominatim will return answers for old_name as > well as name. > So if the supermaket chain Whizzo (fictional name) has closed down its store > in one town, > using old_name=Whizzo will lead people from out of area searching for their > nearest Whizzo > to think it's still there but has rebranded (it's still Whizzo but with a new > name). That's why > note=* exists, to let other mappers know why a thing is mapped a certain way > when reasons > exist to assume it ought not be. > > There are cases where I'd use old_name: where the name has changed but not > the function. > Houses of significance (such as listed buildings, mansions, etc.) which have > changed name > but references may be found in older books (and even on-line) to the old > name. You may not > know that Castell Malgwyn Hotel became Hammet House after you find a > reference to > Castell Malgwyn somewhere (still a hotel: it may revert to theold name soon, > and if it does > I'll swap name and old_name). Pubs sometimes change name with a change of > landlord, > and again references to the old name abound. > > Where I'd definitely not use old name is where (for example) a general store > closed down > and a restaurant re-opened in its place: Siop y Cardi (general store) in > Cardigan is now Crwst > (restaurant). Using old_name for that would be highly misleading and benefit > nobody. If I > thought another mapper might come along and rename back to Siop y Cardi then > I would have > added a note saying that was the building's previous incarnation, not used > old_name. > > -- > Paul > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
