Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[Bryan Housel]

They could all have `operator:wikidata=Q7414497`, then there is no confusion.  

A dataset of all operators in OSM linked to wikidata QIDs will be coming soon, 
I promise! 

We already have this for brands, and it’s pretty rad:  https://nsi.guide


Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 30, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Ray Kiddy  wrote:
> 
> Is there a way that the alt_name vs name situation can be sorted for a key 
> like "operator"?
> 
> For example, the "San Jose Unified School District" in California gives too 
> few results in overpass. Add queries for "San José Unified School District" 
> and you are good.
> 
> If I was looking at the district, it would work to have the name without the 
> accent as "name" and then, without the accent, it would be the "alt_name".
> 
> But there is no "operator" or "alt_operator" tag on the schools, so I guess I 
> keep having to use this?
> 
> [out:json][timeout:25];
> // gather results
> (
>   // query part for: “operator="San Jose Unified School District"”
>   node["operator"="San Jose Unified School District"];
>   way["operator"="San Jose Unified School District"];
>   relation["operator"="San Jose Unified School District"];
>   node["operator"="San José Unified School District"];
>   way["operator"="San José Unified School District"];
>   relation["operator"="San José Unified School District"];
> );
> // print results
> out body;
> >;
> out skel qt;
> 
> cheers - ray
> 
> 
>> On 12/27/19 9:57 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> Thanks, Tod.
>> 
>> BTW, I believe the "official_name" for all California counties is now
>> in the format "County of Los Angeles", right? This shouldn't be used
>> for the "name=" since almost everyone still puts the County last (e.g.
>> "Los Angeles County") in common usage, but official documents will use
>> the other way with "of" in the middle.
>> 
>> Joseph Eisenberg
>> 
>>> On 12/28/19, Tod Fitch  wrote:
>>> Based on this discussion and my own checking to see what search engines are
>>> doing with the data, I think it would be okay to move the alt_name tag value
>>> to be a short_name value for the counties in California and Arizona where
>>> the current alt_name tag is the same string as the name but without a “
>>> County” suffix. For example:
>>> 
>>> alt_name=“Los Angeles”
>>> name=“Los Angeles County”
>>> 
>>> Changed to
>>> 
>>> name=“Los Angeles County”
>>> short_name=“Los Angeles”
>>> 
>>> From my side this is now just a desire to be logical and consistent (not
>>> always a trait seen in OSM tagging). My initial annoyance has been dealt
>>> with on my topo map rendering by creating a Postgresql function that, among
>>> other things, will ignore alt_name values if they fit the above criteria. As
>>> noted by Joseph Eisenberg, the alt_name/short_name value could probably be
>>> dropped in these cases but I suspect that will get more push back than
>>> changing the tag.
>>> 
>>> — Tod
>>> 
 On Dec 27, 2019, at 7:21 PM, Joseph Eisenberg 
 wrote:
 
 It's not necessary to add an alternative like "Josephine" if the name=
 is already "Josephine County" because geocoding and search application
 already know to search for part of a name.
 
 For example this search already finds the "Josephine County"
 administrative boundary as the first result:
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Josephine - and there is no
 short alt_name or short_name.
 
 So I think there is no reason to have this information duplicated if
 we are just worried about search.
 
 -Joseph Eisenberg
 
 On 12/27/19, stevea  wrote:
> 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 real-world experiences and
> knowledge is only going to help things.  If somebody reading now has a
> more-concrete understanding of differences between old-, alt-,
> official-,
> and so on, hooray.  If such sharper focus finds its way into a
> more-enlightened sentence or paragraph in a wiki, great.
> 
> Chip, chip, chipping away at it (are all of us),
> SteveA
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> 

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[Ray Kiddy]

Is there a way that the alt_name vs name situation can be sorted for a 
key like "operator"?


For example, the "San Jose Unified School District" in California gives 
too few results in overpass. Add queries for "San José Unified School 
District" and you are good.


If I was looking at the district, it would work to have the name without 
the accent as "name" and then, without the accent, it would be the 
"alt_name".


But there is no "operator" or "alt_operator" tag on the schools, so I 
guess I keep having to use this?


    [out:json][timeout:25];
    // gather results
    (
      // query part for: “operator="San Jose Unified School District"”
      node["operator"="San Jose Unified School District"];
      way["operator"="San Jose Unified School District"];
      relation["operator"="San Jose Unified School District"];
      node["operator"="San José Unified School District"];
      way["operator"="San José Unified School District"];
      relation["operator"="San José Unified School District"];
    );
    // print results
    out body;
    >;
    out skel qt;

cheers - ray


On 12/27/19 9:57 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

Thanks, Tod.

BTW, I believe the "official_name" for all California counties is now
in the format "County of Los Angeles", right? This shouldn't be used
for the "name=" since almost everyone still puts the County last (e.g.
"Los Angeles County") in common usage, but official documents will use
the other way with "of" in the middle.

Joseph Eisenberg

On 12/28/19, Tod Fitch  wrote:

Based on this discussion and my own checking to see what search engines are
doing with the data, I think it would be okay to move the alt_name tag value
to be a short_name value for the counties in California and Arizona where
the current alt_name tag is the same string as the name but without a “
County” suffix. For example:

alt_name=“Los Angeles”
name=“Los Angeles County”

Changed to

name=“Los Angeles County”
short_name=“Los Angeles”

 From my side this is now just a desire to be logical and consistent (not
always a trait seen in OSM tagging). My initial annoyance has been dealt
with on my topo map rendering by creating a Postgresql function that, among
other things, will ignore alt_name values if they fit the above criteria. As
noted by Joseph Eisenberg, the alt_name/short_name value could probably be
dropped in these cases but I suspect that will get more push back than
changing the tag.

— Tod


On Dec 27, 2019, at 7:21 PM, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

It's not necessary to add an alternative like "Josephine" if the name=
is already "Josephine County" because geocoding and search application
already know to search for part of a name.

For example this search already finds the "Josephine County"
administrative boundary as the first result:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Josephine - and there is no
short alt_name or short_name.

So I think there is no reason to have this information duplicated if
we are just worried about search.

-Joseph Eisenberg

On 12/27/19, stevea  wrote:

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 real-world experiences and
knowledge is only going to help things.  If somebody reading now has a
more-concrete understanding of differences between old-, alt-,
official-,
and so on, hooray.  If such sharper focus finds its way into a
more-enlightened sentence or paragraph in a wiki, great.

Chip, chip, chipping away at it (are all of us),
SteveA

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


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



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


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

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Thanks, Tod.

BTW, I believe the "official_name" for all California counties is now
in the format "County of Los Angeles", right? This shouldn't be used
for the "name=" since almost everyone still puts the County last (e.g.
"Los Angeles County") in common usage, but official documents will use
the other way with "of" in the middle.

Joseph Eisenberg

On 12/28/19, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> Based on this discussion and my own checking to see what search engines are
> doing with the data, I think it would be okay to move the alt_name tag value
> to be a short_name value for the counties in California and Arizona where
> the current alt_name tag is the same string as the name but without a “
> County” suffix. For example:
>
> alt_name=“Los Angeles”
> name=“Los Angeles County”
>
> Changed to
>
> name=“Los Angeles County”
> short_name=“Los Angeles”
>
> From my side this is now just a desire to be logical and consistent (not
> always a trait seen in OSM tagging). My initial annoyance has been dealt
> with on my topo map rendering by creating a Postgresql function that, among
> other things, will ignore alt_name values if they fit the above criteria. As
> noted by Joseph Eisenberg, the alt_name/short_name value could probably be
> dropped in these cases but I suspect that will get more push back than
> changing the tag.
>
> — Tod
>
>> On Dec 27, 2019, at 7:21 PM, Joseph Eisenberg 
>> wrote:
>>
>> It's not necessary to add an alternative like "Josephine" if the name=
>> is already "Josephine County" because geocoding and search application
>> already know to search for part of a name.
>>
>> For example this search already finds the "Josephine County"
>> administrative boundary as the first result:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Josephine - and there is no
>> short alt_name or short_name.
>>
>> So I think there is no reason to have this information duplicated if
>> we are just worried about search.
>>
>> -Joseph Eisenberg
>>
>> On 12/27/19, stevea  wrote:
>>> 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 real-world experiences and
>>> knowledge is only going to help things.  If somebody reading now has a
>>> more-concrete understanding of differences between old-, alt-,
>>> official-,
>>> and so on, hooray.  If such sharper focus finds its way into a
>>> more-enlightened sentence or paragraph in a wiki, great.
>>>
>>> Chip, chip, chipping away at it (are all of us),
>>> SteveA
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>

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

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[Tod Fitch]

Based on this discussion and my own checking to see what search engines are 
doing with the data, I think it would be okay to move the alt_name tag value to 
be a short_name value for the counties in California and Arizona where the 
current alt_name tag is the same string as the name but without a “ County” 
suffix. For example:

alt_name=“Los Angeles”
name=“Los Angeles County”

Changed to

name=“Los Angeles County”
short_name=“Los Angeles”

From my side this is now just a desire to be logical and consistent (not always 
a trait seen in OSM tagging). My initial annoyance has been dealt with on my 
topo map rendering by creating a Postgresql function that, among other things, 
will ignore alt_name values if they fit the above criteria. As noted by Joseph 
Eisenberg, the alt_name/short_name value could probably be dropped in these 
cases but I suspect that will get more push back than changing the tag.

— Tod

> On Dec 27, 2019, at 7:21 PM, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> It's not necessary to add an alternative like "Josephine" if the name=
> is already "Josephine County" because geocoding and search application
> already know to search for part of a name.
> 
> For example this search already finds the "Josephine County"
> administrative boundary as the first result:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Josephine - and there is no
> short alt_name or short_name.
> 
> So I think there is no reason to have this information duplicated if
> we are just worried about search.
> 
> -Joseph Eisenberg
> 
> On 12/27/19, stevea  wrote:
>> 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 real-world experiences and
>> knowledge is only going to help things.  If somebody reading now has a
>> more-concrete understanding of differences between old-, alt-, official-,
>> and so on, hooray.  If such sharper focus finds its way into a
>> more-enlightened sentence or paragraph in a wiki, great.
>> 
>> Chip, chip, chipping away at it (are all of us),
>> SteveA
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[Joseph Eisenberg]

It's fine to use short_name= if that's a commonly-used shorter name
for a feature, which might be used by a renderer when they want a more
concise name for rendering, for example, and which is still a name
that is in use locally.

I'm just mentioning that it's not necessary to add this to help search
applications only.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 12/28/19, stevea  wrote:
> Right:  I've wondered if short_name would be appropriate in this case.  Our
> wiki says short_name would work, Joseph says "not," though I suppose it is
> ultimately up to the search machinery and what it does.  If, indeed, as
> Joseph says, it already does this (or "they" already do this), the need for
> our documented short_name value simply goes away.
>
> SteveA
>
>> On Dec 27, 2019, at 7:21 PM, Joseph Eisenberg 
>> wrote:
>>
>> It's not necessary to add an alternative like "Josephine" if the name=
>> is already "Josephine County" because geocoding and search application
>> already know to search for part of a name.
>>
>> For example this search already finds the "Josephine County"
>> administrative boundary as the first result:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Josephine - and there is no
>> short alt_name or short_name.
>>
>> So I think there is no reason to have this information duplicated if
>> we are just worried about search.
>>
>> -Joseph Eisenberg
>
>

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

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[stevea]

Right:  I've wondered if short_name would be appropriate in this case.  Our 
wiki says short_name would work, Joseph says "not," though I suppose it is 
ultimately up to the search machinery and what it does.  If, indeed, as Joseph 
says, it already does this (or "they" already do this), the need for our 
documented short_name value simply goes away.

SteveA

> On Dec 27, 2019, at 7:21 PM, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> It's not necessary to add an alternative like "Josephine" if the name=
> is already "Josephine County" because geocoding and search application
> already know to search for part of a name.
> 
> For example this search already finds the "Josephine County"
> administrative boundary as the first result:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Josephine - and there is no
> short alt_name or short_name.
> 
> So I think there is no reason to have this information duplicated if
> we are just worried about search.
> 
> -Joseph Eisenberg


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

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[Joseph Eisenberg]

It's not necessary to add an alternative like "Josephine" if the name=
is already "Josephine County" because geocoding and search application
already know to search for part of a name.

For example this search already finds the "Josephine County"
administrative boundary as the first result:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Josephine - and there is no
short alt_name or short_name.

So I think there is no reason to have this information duplicated if
we are just worried about search.

-Joseph Eisenberg

On 12/27/19, stevea  wrote:
> 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 real-world experiences and
> knowledge is only going to help things.  If somebody reading now has a
> more-concrete understanding of differences between old-, alt-, official-,
> and so on, hooray.  If such sharper focus finds its way into a
> more-enlightened sentence or paragraph in a wiki, great.
>
> Chip, chip, chipping away at it (are all of us),
> SteveA
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>

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

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[stevea]

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 real-world experiences and knowledge is 
only going to help things.  If somebody reading now has a more-concrete 
understanding of differences between old-, alt-, official-, and so on, hooray.  
If such sharper focus finds its way into a more-enlightened sentence or 
paragraph in a wiki, great.

Chip, chip, chipping away at it (are all of us),
SteveA

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

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[Paul Johnson]

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 future, indeed many participants in
> this/these thread(s) are authors of our wiki's name page.
> >
> > Better documenting, continuing dialog, consensus-style agreement,
> changing data in the map to reflect our well- or better-documented
> conventions:  all of these get us closer to perfection.  Although I think
> everybody agrees, perfection is nigh on impossible, as "the map is never
> 'done.'"
> >
> > "Do our best."  If there is contention, discuss it.  If there is
> misunderstanding or disagreement, discuss it.  If there is agreement,
> document it and use it in the map and even write code that depends on it.
> We get there, we will better get there as we continue to do these things.
>
> Exactly. There is a plethora of name variations in the database
> because there is a plethora of names in the field.
>
> I joke that in New York City, most of the freeways have three names:
> the highway number, which is on the signs but nobody ever uses it in
> speaking, the name of the highway (e.g., "Jackie Robinson Parkway",
> "Avenue of the Americas", "Robert F. Kennedy Bridge") that's on all
> the signs (but the locals don't remember the name!), and the name that
> the locals call it (e.g., "Interborough Parkway", "Sixth Avenue",
> "Triboro Bridge") which isn't on the signs. (Not quite true - New York
> gave up some years ago and posted signs reading  both Sixth Avenue and
> Avenue of the Americas, but give me some poetic license here.)
>

I'll have to reiterate that "the name is not the reference", and highway
numbers are best reserved not for the name, but for the ref=* (or even
better yet, the route=road relation), except for addressing.  For example,
US 412/US 59 in Siloam Springs, AR really shouldn't have a name (but at the
time of this writing is tagged name=Highway 412 West/East).  This is wrong,
should be noname=yes instead.  Now, to use a random car wash on the road as
a handy example, *that* is where this localism should appear, with that
building being tagged as addr:housenumber=1402 and addr:street=Highway 412
West.  This comes up a *lot*, given that the US Postal Service needs to
have a canonical name for any particular street with mail delivery, even if
the street has no name, even if the street is absurdly long.  A good
example of this in action would be addresses on a road that was renamed
after two police officers, with their full titles and expanded names, but
the postal service rejected that with the address names still being "New
Sapulpa Road".  Or another example where a nameless road passes the Farm
Credit of Western Oklahoma branch in Guymon, the road has no name and
ref=US 64;US 412;OK 3;OK 136, but the bank branch has addr:street=North
Highway 64.  The Karlsruhe address schema handles these complex situations
*flawlessly*.

The situation is similar to ZIP codes provided by the US Census versus ZIP
codes provided by the US Postal Service, with in both cases, the USPS
having it's own specific reality that is a result of trivializing
complicated situations to provide specific georeferencing within their
service network.  Yes, I'm aware E911 also has addressing that often
doesn't perfectly reflect the street situation but given that it was
modeled after the USPS system *and* covers areas the USPS doesn't (filling
in the Census ZIP where the USPS doesn't have ZIPs), I'm lumping it into
the USPS for purposes of this discussion.


> Back to counties, specifically:
>
> Three of the five counties that make up New York City absolutely need
> alt_names.  The Borough of Manhattan is New York County; the Borough
> of Brooklyn is Kings County, and the Borough of Staten Island is
> Richmond County. Both sets of names are official - the county courts
> still go by the county names, while the executive branch of the city
> government uses the borough names.
>

+1
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[Paul Johnson]

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 authors of our wiki's name page.
>
> Better documenting, continuing dialog, consensus-style agreement, changing
> data in the map to reflect our well- or better-documented conventions:  all
> of these get us closer to perfection.  Although I think everybody agrees,
> perfection is nigh on impossible, as "the map is never 'done.'"
>
> "Do our best."  If there is contention, discuss it.  If there is
> misunderstanding or disagreement, discuss it.  If there is agreement,
> document it and use it in the map and even write code that depends on it.
> We get there, we will better get there as we continue to do these things.
>

I wish it was even this straightforward.  Liberty Parkway in Broken Arrow,
OK being a great example.  The city calls it Creek Turnpike, the OTA calls
the route that traverses the length of it Creek Turnpike, the state
legislature officially renamed it Liberty Parkway.  To me, this speaks
loudly to calling it name=Liberty Parkway, loc_name=Creek Turnpike,
especially since when you're on it, it's signed as Liberty Parkway and the
only signs that still say Creek Turnpike are posted by the City of Broken
Arrow at the surface street end of ramps.  DWG went with how it's tagged
now, essentially erasing ground truth, something that I'm not satisfied
with but respect (especially given that data consumers will call out
"Continue for ___ kilometers/miles on Creek Turnpike" when passing a big
green sign that says LIBERTY PARKWAY after a confusing interchange).
Meanwhile in the same interchange at the cycleway level, Creek Turnpike
Trail, Liberty Parkway Trail and Mingo Valley Trail meet a three-way "y"
shaped intersection, and in a case of local amnesia, Broken Arrow won't
acknowledge Liberty Parkway's name, even though they themselves sign the
cycleway as Liberty Parkway Trail and even say they did that because it
runs frontage to Liberty Parkway, and that Liberty Parkway Trail name
persists for the entire length of the Liberty Parkway it runs adjacent to...

This speaks more to how stupidly complicated naming is in Oklahoma than
anything, but even on sections with easily five or six equally valid names
for the same road, it's not even that obvious to locals which should get
prime billing and some will go a long way to argue against the ground
truth.  See above again, Liberty Parkway.

I really wish Oklahoma would adopt Oregon's lead and have the concept of
honorific naming (Oklahoma does not), and post unique signs for the
honorific names instead of officially legally renaming stuff.  That'd at
least narrow it down to name:*= namespaces (where the * is mercifully
limited to various translations of the same name, like name=Bear Street,
name:en=Bear Street, name:mus=Nokose Yusten (lit. Bear Trail), or (slightly
more controversial but in practice the right call, given the vernacular
language is English and the official language is Cherokee in Tahlequah),
name=Muskogee Avenue, name:en=Muskogee Avenue, name:chr=ᎫᏐ ᎦᎳᏅᏛ (lit. Creek
Road) going from memory and my Cherokee is terrible, so apologies if I
slaughtered that).
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[Paul Johnson]

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 old_name
> become promoted to an alt_name?
>

Good question.  There's still a lot of Portlanders who use "Union Avenue"
to refer to "Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard", for reasons obvious to
anyone familiar with Portland's least cheerful open secret, though it does
provide a useful lifecycle example for straightforward ones.

1989: MLK Jr. Blvd signs go up.  name=Northeast Martin Luther King, Junior
Boulevard, alt_name=Northeast Union Avenue
1994: Union Avenue signs start getting removed in select portions.
name=Northeast Martin Luther King, Junior Boulevard, old_name=Northeast
Union Avenue in selected portions.
200x: Last Union Avenue signs come down.  name=Northeast Martin Luther
King, Junior Boulevard, old_name=Northeast Union Avenue for entire segment.

Note this doesn't very well map cleanly to places that have a short memory
on names, like Oklahoma, where it's pretty routine to have, 6 to 8 times a
year, actual states of emergency declared to rename roads shotgun style,
randomly, with exceptionally long names on exceptionally short segments.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[Kevin Kenny]

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) are authors of our wiki's name page.
>
> Better documenting, continuing dialog, consensus-style agreement, changing 
> data in the map to reflect our well- or better-documented conventions:  all 
> of these get us closer to perfection.  Although I think everybody agrees, 
> perfection is nigh on impossible, as "the map is never 'done.'"
>
> "Do our best."  If there is contention, discuss it.  If there is 
> misunderstanding or disagreement, discuss it.  If there is agreement, 
> document it and use it in the map and even write code that depends on it.  We 
> get there, we will better get there as we continue to do these things.

Exactly. There is a plethora of name variations in the database
because there is a plethora of names in the field.

I joke that in New York City, most of the freeways have three names:
the highway number, which is on the signs but nobody ever uses it in
speaking, the name of the highway (e.g., "Jackie Robinson Parkway",
"Avenue of the Americas", "Robert F. Kennedy Bridge") that's on all
the signs (but the locals don't remember the name!), and the name that
the locals call it (e.g., "Interborough Parkway", "Sixth Avenue",
"Triboro Bridge") which isn't on the signs. (Not quite true - New York
gave up some years ago and posted signs reading  both Sixth Avenue and
Avenue of the Americas, but give me some poetic license here.)

Back to counties, specifically:

Three of the five counties that make up New York City absolutely need
alt_names.  The Borough of Manhattan is New York County; the Borough
of Brooklyn is Kings County, and the Borough of Staten Island is
Richmond County. Both sets of names are official - the county courts
still go by the county names, while the executive branch of the city
government uses the borough names.

Some of the Downstate counties (Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland
come to mind) in New York are often used in speaking without 'County'
appended, and it certainly would make sense to have alt_names for
those without the 'County' suffix. Upstate, it's much less common,
partly because many are ambiguous. I wouldn't ever say that I live in
Schenectady, because I live outside the Schenectady city limits. I do
nevertheless live in Schenectady County, and might say that to someone
who's not familiar with the area but knows at least where Schenectady
is. Similarly, nobody ever calls Washington County just 'Washington';
it's too confusing.

I haven't yet tried to sort out a proper name:fr for Lake George. All
of 'Lac George', 'Lac Georges', and 'Lac du Saint-Sacrement' appear in
print and on multilingual signage. It was definitely 'Lac du
Saint-Sacrement' to the French before the English seized the land
around it in 1760. Francophone locals would recognize any of the
names.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[stevea]

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, continuing dialog, consensus-style agreement, changing data 
in the map to reflect our well- or better-documented conventions:  all of these 
get us closer to perfection.  Although I think everybody agrees, perfection is 
nigh on impossible, as "the map is never 'done.'"

"Do our best."  If there is contention, discuss it.  If there is 
misunderstanding or disagreement, discuss it.  If there is agreement, document 
it and use it in the map and even write code that depends on it.  We get there, 
we will better get there as we continue to do these things.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[Paul Johnson]

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 alt_name tag so that the South Mountain Freeway can still be
> found in a search.
>

Did you mean to use "old_name" instead of "alt_name"?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[stevea]

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 have/use name, 
alt_name, official_name, loc_name (and all the rest), we "do our best" to 
capture these semantics.  The iterative process of how all of that works with 
renderers/routers/searchers that pay attention to all of it is, it seems by 
necessity, a slow-moving and a back-and-forth-many-times effort.

Dialog like this is an important part of that.  We are, after all, inventing 
and developing-on-the-fly a crowd-sourced planetary-wide map, and there are 
millions (billions, really) of us involved.  After a decade or two (or three, 
or four...), it gets better, but I'm content to look ahead to OSM's second, 
third, fourth and fifth decades as "better gets YET BETTER."  Sharpen focus, 
sharpen focus, sharpen focus.

SteveA

> On Dec 26, 2019, at 9:33 AM, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> 
> 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
>> skirt the edge of El Dorado to get to Alpine").  Greg (M.) seems to
>> indicate this happens in (Pima) Arizona, as well.
> 
> I can see that this is useful, but I see that as "how should a
> renderer/router/searcher use the database", vs "we should add alt_foo
> tags for anything that  someone might search on".


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

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[Greg Troxel]

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
> skirt the edge of El Dorado to get to Alpine").  Greg (M.) seems to
> indicate this happens in (Pima) Arizona, as well.

I can see that this is useful, but I see that as "how should a
renderer/router/searcher use the database", vs "we should add alt_foo
tags for anything that  someone might search on".

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

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[Greg Troxel]

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,
> Orange, Kern and Ventura counties in California. But this does not
> seem universal as the few counties I looked at in Washington state
> have only a name=* tag (e.g. name=“Columbia County”).

This seems bogus and feels like tagging for the search engine.

I think the root of the problem is that from some point of view, the
name of Foo County is Foo, just like the name of Town of Bar is Bar.


> I don’t see a wiki page for the standard for this in the United States. Is 
> there one I’ve missed?
>
> Assuming there is not standard for this, should there be? And what should it 
> be? (My preference is to remove an alt_name that is simply the name without 
> “County”.)
>
> For what it is worth, it looks like the alt_names for counties in Arizona and 
> California were added in 2014 by the user “revent” who is still actively 
> mapping borders around the world.

Definitely ask them about it, and if they aren't local, and the locals
don't like it, fix it.   (Is there a talk-us-califoria list?)

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

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[stevea]

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 discussing how a highway near me I had 
"renamed" (with its name=* tag) for a slain state highway patrol officer was 
causing the text-to-speech code of a navigation device to pour forth a very 
lengthy "take this exit" burst of speech that was difficult to follow.  We 
agreed that official_name=* was an appropriate key for the value of this 
signed-on-the-ground name for the highway, although I have seen alt_name tagged 
in the map for this purpose (and I might have "corrected" it to official_name, 
I can't recall exactly).

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 skirt the edge of El Dorado to get to 
Alpine").  Greg (M.) seems to indicate this happens in (Pima) Arizona, as well.

SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[Tod Fitch]

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 located in Maricopa County (name=“Maricopa County” with 
alt_name=“Maricopa”) and that use of alt_name is what I find annoying.

To be up front, I had not noticed this naming practice in Arizona and 
California before I’d modified my topographic map rendering to combine the name 
and alt_name values into a form of “name value (alt_name value)” and seeing 
“Maricopa County (Maricopa)” on my map is what brought it to my attention. In 
your case “Congressman Ed Pastor Freeway (South Mountain Freeway)” would make 
perfect sense from the point of view of my rendering.

If the hive opinion is that having the alt_name value be a substring of the 
name value is okay then so be it. But my impression was that the alt_name was 
for cases like the South Mountain Freeway where the two names were 
significantly different.

Regarding keeping the alt_name in this case to assist searching is not an 
issue. For example if you search for “Columbia” on https:www.openstreetmap.org 
to find Columbia County in Washington State you will find many other Columbia 
Counties around the country, only the one in Florida has alt_name=Columbia set. 
Nominatim will return all of them despite the lack of an alt_name tag on most 
of them.

Cheers!
Tod

> On Dec 25, 2019, at 10:55 PM, 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 alt_name tag so that the South Mountain Freeway can still be found in a 
> search.  The new name is months old while the old alt_name has been used for 
> decade.  Not everyone calls Pima County by its full name.  That's why I think 
> that the mapper added the alt_name so that searches would be successful.
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78850121 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 6:26 PM Tod Fitch  > wrote:
> 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, Orange, Kern and Ventura counties in 
> California. But this does not seem universal as the few counties I looked at 
> in Washington state have only a name=* tag (e.g. name=“Columbia County”).
> 
> I don’t see a wiki page for the standard for this in the United States. Is 
> there one I’ve missed?
> 
> Assuming there is not standard for this, should there be? And what should it 
> be? (My preference is to remove an alt_name that is simply the name without 
> “County”.)
> 
> For what it is worth, it looks like the alt_names for counties in Arizona and 
> California were added in 2014 by the user “revent” who is still actively 
> mapping borders around the world.
> 
> Thanks!
> Tod
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us 
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[Mateusz Konieczny]

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 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, Orange, Kern and Ventura counties in 
> California. But this does not seem universal as the few counties I looked at 
> in Washington state have only a name=* tag (e.g. name=“Columbia County”).
>
> I don’t see a wiki page for the standard for this in the United States. Is 
> there one I’ve missed?
>
> Assuming there is not standard for this, should there be? And what should it 
> be? (My preference is to remove an alt_name that is simply the name without 
> “County”.)
>
> For what it is worth, it looks like the alt_names for counties in Arizona and 
> California were added in 2014 by the user “revent” who is still actively 
> mapping borders around the world.
>
> Thanks!
> Tod
>___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[Joseph Eisenberg]

>  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=“.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[Greg Morgan]

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 alt_name tag so that the South Mountain Freeway can still be
found in a search.  The new name is months old while the old alt_name has
been used for decade.  Not everyone calls Pima County by its full name.
That's why I think that the mapper added the alt_name so that
searches would be successful.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78850121

On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 6:26 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:

> 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, Orange, Kern and Ventura counties in
> California. But this does not seem universal as the few counties I looked
> at in Washington state have only a name=* tag (e.g. name=“Columbia County”).
>
> I don’t see a wiki page for the standard for this in the United States. Is
> there one I’ve missed?
>
> Assuming there is not standard for this, should there be? And what should
> it be? (My preference is to remove an alt_name that is simply the name
> without “County”.)
>
> For what it is worth, it looks like the alt_names for counties in Arizona
> and California were added in 2014 by the user “revent” who is still
> actively mapping borders around the world.
>
> Thanks!
> Tod
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

[Tod Fitch]

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, Orange, Kern and Ventura counties in 
California. But this does not seem universal as the few counties I looked at in 
Washington state have only a name=* tag (e.g. name=“Columbia County”).

I don’t see a wiki page for the standard for this in the United States. Is 
there one I’ve missed?

Assuming there is not standard for this, should there be? And what should it 
be? (My preference is to remove an alt_name that is simply the name without 
“County”.)

For what it is worth, it looks like the alt_names for counties in Arizona and 
California were added in 2014 by the user “revent” who is still actively 
mapping borders around the world.

Thanks!
Tod



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us