Re: [Talk-ca] Postal Code cleanup

Task complete.   The multi-postal codes are tagged on buildings which may have more than 1 address.  Local mappers who are familiar with the areas should review it.   It looks like in many places imports were used which incorrectly parsed the addresses.  Many issues where the value started

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

On Feb 12, 2018, at 6:02 PM, Bernie Connors wrote: > I see the use of "City of" as indicating the official name of a municipality > as it is defined in legislation. Here in New Brunswick the Municipalities > Act‎ defines the official names of municipalities. Some opt to

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

Bernie is correct. "City of", "Municipality of", "x County" is a legal name that would be referring to the legal entity itself (the Government) rather than the place. The place should just be Toronto, Hamilton, Mississauga etc.. The data source these legal names comes from has the legal name as

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

Checked for Toronto and Ottawa they do not have "City of" : http://www4.rncan.gc.ca/search-place-names/search?q=Toronto[]=985=O I agree with what Bernie said, unless it's the official name. It seems it's a classification. On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:02 PM, Bernie Connors

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

I see the use of "City of" as indicating the official name of a municipality as it is defined in legislation. Here in New Brunswick the Municipalities Act‎ defines the official names of municipalities. Some opt to use "City of ", "Town of ", etc in the Municipalities Act and some don't. But when

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

Kevin thanks for the history lesson.  As I mentioned on other threads, I'm relatively new here, so I am missing the context, so I appreciate you filling it in. Looking at the 100 used "Town/City/Municipality of " names, they seem to be entirely in Ontario.  So perhaps this is mostly an

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

> i believe "city of" is redundant as its a classification vs a name. > Would we say "village of maniwaki"? nope. What "we say" and what "OSM tags" can vary slightly. Although with names, "what we say" is a great place to start and very largely correct. This is a topic which can explode

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

On 2018-02-12 06:05 PM, Stewart Russell wrote: On Feb 12, 2018 17:51, "Matthew Darwin" > wrote: Hi, I am now reviewing the *addr**:city* tag. Seems we are not very consistent how we use it. For example, Toronto:  110707 City of

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

Hi Matthew, Not having the "City of" or "Town of" would be preferred - the reason those are there is that the CanVec data that was imported uses administrative names in the data. When people search or say an address out loud they would use "123 Yonge St, Toronto" not "123 Yonge St, City of

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

i believe "city of" is redundant as its a classification vs a name. Would we say "village of maniwaki"? nope. On Feb 12, 2018 5:51 PM, "Matthew Darwin" wrote: > Hi, > > I am now reviewing the *addr**:city* tag. Seems we are not very > consistent how we use it. For

[Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

Hi, I am now reviewing the *addr**:city* tag.   Seems we are not very consistent how we use it.  For example, Toronto:  110707 City of Toronto    9603 Toronto   4 North York, Toronto   2 Toronto, ON   2 toronto   1 York, Toronto   1 Torontoitalian   1 Toronto;City of

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

Phone number tidy-up is now complete, per the original discussion.  I think we still could clean up this list further I welcome any discussion in that regard.  Any phone numbers using letters instead of numbers remain with letters. The top 10 formats used in Canada are:   20640