Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

OSM has much in common with language and, it can be said, maps (heh, in a 
mathematical sense) fairly directly onto language:  plastic tagging syntax, 
rules which sometimes get broken, vivid semiotics which change with what we 
wish the map to visually "do" for us and usage which newly defines different 
and often better ways of doing things.  (Among many other things in common with 
language).  I wouldn't call OSM terribly strict, but it does have tenets and 
traditions (consensus is one, having fun is another), even as these grow and 
(slowly) change.  As a project, it is organic and human and good to remind 
ourselves of that every once in a while.  Thanks everybody, this has been 
rewarding for me.

Zooming out,
SteveA
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-02-19 06:44 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
> 
> OSM learns by example, by documenting how we should tag
> (prescriptive) and how we do tag (descriptive) …
I think it's the other way around: we map first, see which ideas
coalesce, then document what we've seen has worked. If OSM ever had a
strict spec, guys in pubs* would still be squabbling over it and no-one
would have mapped a thing.

OSM's more like the OED than /les immortels/: trying to make sense of
millions of bits of paper and including anything with two or more
citations, rather than declaring that this is the official word for
that, usage be damned.

 Stewart

*: aka every flippin' page of the Steve Coast OSM book

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

[Matthew Darwin]

I have summarized the discussion we had here over the last week or so  
on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines for 
easy reference in the future.  It is:



   Municipality Names

Municipality names are to be spelt according to how they are listed in 
NRCan (http://www4.rncan.gc.ca/search-place-names/search) or other 
official source. That means:


 *

   Do not include "City of", "Municipality of" or similar in the name
   unless that is officially part of the name.   "Village of Queen
   Charlotte" (BC) is correct, "City of Toronto" is incorrect (should
   be "Toronto").

 *

   Do not expand "St." to "Saint" or "Ste" to "Sainte" just to
   conform to OSM's "don't abbreviate names" rule. If the city name
   is normally has it expanded, then it is maintained as expanded in
   OSM. If it is not normally expanded, then it is not expanded in
   OSM. "Saint John" (NB) and "St. John's" (NL) are both correct.


Feel free to clarify further on the wiki or continue the discussion 
here...



Matthew Darwin
matt...@mdarwin.ca
http://www.mdarwin.ca

On 2018-02-19 06:33 PM, Stewart C. Russell wrote:

On 2018-02-19 05:08 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:

Have you passed by talk-gb? They have a fair amount of "St" names and
some authority as to how to do things in OSM.

The UK has Bury St Edmunds, Chapel St Leonards, Lytham St Annes, Ottery
St Mary, St Andrews, St Anne, St Austell, St Blazey, St Columb Major, St
Helens, St Ives, St Monans and St Neots all as town names in OSM. The
only two "Saint .*" towns in the whole British Isles' OSM are Saint
Helier and Saint Peter Port, both in the Channel Islands. Both have
French influences. And just to thumb its nose at us, nearby Alderney has
the town of "St Anne". So I don't think they can be a great example.

Near "St. Louis" (Missouri - abbreviated that way in OSM), OSM has the
towns of "Saint Clair" and "Saint James". In the same area, there's St.
Charles, St. Peters and East St. Louis (IL). In the St. Louis metro
area, there are roughly 4500 ways named "St\. Louis.*" and roughly 3500
ways named "St Louis.*". There are also roughly 3500 ways named "Saint .*"

So this is not a standard well kept.

  Stewart

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


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names (Jarek Piórkowski)

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

> On 2018-02-19 05:08 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>> Have you passed by talk-gb? They have a fair amount of "St" names and
>> some authority as to how to do things in OSM.

I haven't, but I shall.  As I say quite a bit (in our wiki, e.g. 
California/Railroads), "it's complicated around here."  THEN, there is what we 
do about that in OSM.  (Our best).

On Feb 19, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Stewart C. Russell  wrote:
> The UK has Bury St Edmunds, Chapel St Leonards, Lytham St Annes, Ottery
> St Mary, St Andrews, St Anne, St Austell, St Blazey, St Columb Major, St
> Helens, St Ives, St Monans and St Neots all as town names in OSM. The
> only two "Saint .*" towns in the whole British Isles' OSM are Saint
> Helier and Saint Peter Port, both in the Channel Islands. Both have
> French influences. And just to thumb its nose at us, nearby Alderney has
> the town of "St Anne". So I don't think they can be a great example.

I do not mean to appear to be "the pot calling the kettle black" (even as I 
sheepishly may).  OSM learns by example, by documenting how we should tag 
(prescriptive) and how we do tag (descriptive), — this isn't always clear or 
spelled out — by research such as you've done and by good dialog like here.

> Near "St. Louis" (Missouri - abbreviated that way in OSM), OSM has the
> towns of "Saint Clair" and "Saint James". In the same area, there's St.
> Charles, St. Peters and East St. Louis (IL). In the St. Louis metro
> area, there are roughly 4500 ways named "St\. Louis.*" and roughly 3500
> ways named "St Louis.*". There are also roughly 3500 ways named "Saint .*"
> 
> So this is not a standard well kept.

And we make our point:  OSM doesn't always follow its own rules.  Crowdsourcing 
can be messy, yet we try to improve day by day.  Thanks to all for getting here!

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names (Jarek Piórkowski)

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-02-19 05:08 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> 
> Have you passed by talk-gb? They have a fair amount of "St" names and
> some authority as to how to do things in OSM.

The UK has Bury St Edmunds, Chapel St Leonards, Lytham St Annes, Ottery
St Mary, St Andrews, St Anne, St Austell, St Blazey, St Columb Major, St
Helens, St Ives, St Monans and St Neots all as town names in OSM. The
only two "Saint .*" towns in the whole British Isles' OSM are Saint
Helier and Saint Peter Port, both in the Channel Islands. Both have
French influences. And just to thumb its nose at us, nearby Alderney has
the town of "St Anne". So I don't think they can be a great example.

Near "St. Louis" (Missouri - abbreviated that way in OSM), OSM has the
towns of "Saint Clair" and "Saint James". In the same area, there's St.
Charles, St. Peters and East St. Louis (IL). In the St. Louis metro
area, there are roughly 4500 ways named "St\. Louis.*" and roughly 3500
ways named "St Louis.*". There are also roughly 3500 ways named "Saint .*"

So this is not a standard well kept.

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

Thank you, Matthew.  As I said, "slavishly follow rules," no, not necessarily.  
"Understand the issues," yes, through good dialog.  I like what I see here, it 
allows good consensus to emerge, tedious and perhaps even a bit annoying as it 
may be. :-)

SteveA

On Feb 19, 2018, at 2:00 PM, Matthew Darwin  wrote:
> I respectively I contend that it is not all abbreviations in OSM needs to be 
> expanded, not withstanding of the general direction to expand abbreviations 
> in OSM.  It is illogical to change the well used name of a location.
> 
> There is even a wiki page which has been around since 2010 that lists some 
> exceptions to what should be expanded in the UK: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Invalid_Abbreviation_Expansion

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names (Jarek Piórkowski)

[Jarek Piórkowski]

Steve -

"St. Catharines" is the the official name, _and_ the local name. One can
invent a full name, but it would be an invention.

Have you passed by talk-gb? They have a fair amount of "St" names and some
authority as to how to do things in OSM.

--Jarek


On Feb 19, 2018 22:49, "OSM Volunteer stevea" 
wrote:

I continue to assert that our (OSM's) name=* wiki states these
abbreviations should be fully expanded and that official_name=* might hold
the abbreviation.  In short, "them's the rules" in OSM:  part of why I'm
pounding so hard on this is that I might get some recognition that OSM does
have rules to follow.  (Slavishly?  Well, perhaps yes, perhaps no, but
please analyze and fully understand the issues before taking exception to
them).  There are good reasons for this "no abbreviations" tenet which have
to do with software parsers being able to do sane things.

Jarek and I have exchanged opinions, though what he distilled for me from
his point of view is that "software parsing of names is fraught with
problems..." and so we should/must "fix these problems in the data."
Again, I respectfully disagree:  the data are to be full names without
abbreviations SO THAT software parsers have a consistent set of data to
use.  This is at least partly why official_name and loc_name exist.

I realize that as somebody from outside Canada, some may feel I clomp
clumsily here, as I don't want to get in the way of "how Canada does
things."  However, what we are talking about is "how Canada does things IN
OSM" and about that, I am not outside the tent, I am inside of it.  I
continue to respect good dialog while realizing that all of us, as we
display our passion in this forum, "wish to do the right things."

SteveA


> On Feb 19, 2018, at 1:32 PM, Kevin Farrugia 
wrote:
> St. Catharines was founded by Loyalists, so they would have been English
speaking making comparing with Quebecois names isn't the greatest idea.
Ontario's place names generally have more in common with British convention
than with French/Quebecois historical conventions.  The city's corporate
name uses "St." as does all city and provincial spellings of their name.
In the end, the province has the authority to make a municipal name
"official" and their spelling is only ever found as "St." in any document.
>
> -Kevin Farrugia
> kevinfarru...@gmail.com
>
> On 19 February 2018 at 15:31, Ga Delap  wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 23:56:20 +0100
> > From: Jarek Piórkowski 
> > Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names
> > Message-ID:
> 
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> > ... It is not clear to me that "Saint Catharines" is the
> > correct unabbreviated version of the city's name. In fact it looks
> > incorrect to me.
>
> > --Jarek
>
> Since St-Catharines is of french origin, why don't you look at what they
did on the other side of your language border?
>   Sainte-Catherine
>   Sainte-Catherine-de-Hatley
>   Sainte-Adèle
>   etc
>
> dega
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names

[Matthew Darwin]

Steve,

I respectively I contend that it is not all abbreviations in OSM needs 
to be expanded, not withstanding of the general direction to expand 
abbreviations in OSM.  It is illogical to change the well used name of 
a location.


There is even a wiki page which has been around since 2010 that lists 
some exceptions to what should be expanded in the UK: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Invalid_Abbreviation_Expansion



On 2018-02-19 04:49 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

I continue to assert that our (OSM's) name=* wiki states these abbreviations should be fully 
expanded and that official_name=* might hold the abbreviation.  In short, "them's the 
rules" in OSM:  part of why I'm pounding so hard on this is that I might get some recognition 
that OSM does have rules to follow.  (Slavishly?  Well, perhaps yes, perhaps no, but please analyze 
and fully understand the issues before taking exception to them).  There are good reasons for this 
"no abbreviations" tenet which have to do with software parsers being able to do sane 
things.

Jarek and I have exchanged opinions, though what he distilled for me from his point of view is that 
"software parsing of names is fraught with problems..." and so we should/must "fix 
these problems in the data."  Again, I respectfully disagree:  the data are to be full names 
without abbreviations SO THAT software parsers have a consistent set of data to use.  This is at 
least partly why official_name and loc_name exist.

I realize that as somebody from outside Canada, some may feel I clomp clumsily here, as I don't want to get 
in the way of "how Canada does things."  However, what we are talking about is "how Canada 
does things IN OSM" and about that, I am not outside the tent, I am inside of it.  I continue to respect 
good dialog while realizing that all of us, as we display our passion in this forum, "wish to do the 
right things."

SteveA



On Feb 19, 2018, at 1:32 PM, Kevin Farrugia  wrote:
St. Catharines was founded by Loyalists, so they would have been English speaking making comparing with 
Quebecois names isn't the greatest idea.  Ontario's place names generally have more in common with British 
convention than with French/Quebecois historical conventions.  The city's corporate name uses "St." 
as does all city and provincial spellings of their name.  In the end, the province has the authority to make 
a municipal name "official" and their spelling is only ever found as "St." in any 
document.

-Kevin Farrugia
kevinfarru...@gmail.com

On 19 February 2018 at 15:31, Ga Delap  wrote:

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 23:56:20 +0100
From: Jarek Piórkowski 
Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names
Message-ID:

 

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
... It is not clear to me that "Saint Catharines" is the
correct unabbreviated version of the city's name. In fact it looks
incorrect to me.
--Jarek

Since St-Catharines is of french origin, why don't you look at what they did on 
the other side of your language border?
   Sainte-Catherine
   Sainte-Catherine-de-Hatley
   Sainte-Adèle
   etc

dega


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


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names (Jarek Piórkowski)

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

I continue to assert that our (OSM's) name=* wiki states these abbreviations 
should be fully expanded and that official_name=* might hold the abbreviation.  
In short, "them's the rules" in OSM:  part of why I'm pounding so hard on this 
is that I might get some recognition that OSM does have rules to follow.  
(Slavishly?  Well, perhaps yes, perhaps no, but please analyze and fully 
understand the issues before taking exception to them).  There are good reasons 
for this "no abbreviations" tenet which have to do with software parsers being 
able to do sane things.

Jarek and I have exchanged opinions, though what he distilled for me from his 
point of view is that "software parsing of names is fraught with problems..." 
and so we should/must "fix these problems in the data."  Again, I respectfully 
disagree:  the data are to be full names without abbreviations SO THAT software 
parsers have a consistent set of data to use.  This is at least partly why 
official_name and loc_name exist.

I realize that as somebody from outside Canada, some may feel I clomp clumsily 
here, as I don't want to get in the way of "how Canada does things."  However, 
what we are talking about is "how Canada does things IN OSM" and about that, I 
am not outside the tent, I am inside of it.  I continue to respect good dialog 
while realizing that all of us, as we display our passion in this forum, "wish 
to do the right things."

SteveA


> On Feb 19, 2018, at 1:32 PM, Kevin Farrugia  wrote:
> St. Catharines was founded by Loyalists, so they would have been English 
> speaking making comparing with Quebecois names isn't the greatest idea.  
> Ontario's place names generally have more in common with British convention 
> than with French/Quebecois historical conventions.  The city's corporate name 
> uses "St." as does all city and provincial spellings of their name.  In the 
> end, the province has the authority to make a municipal name "official" and 
> their spelling is only ever found as "St." in any document.
> 
> -Kevin Farrugia
> kevinfarru...@gmail.com
> 
> On 19 February 2018 at 15:31, Ga Delap  wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 23:56:20 +0100
> > From: Jarek Piórkowski 
> > Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names
> > Message-ID:
> 
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> > ... It is not clear to me that "Saint Catharines" is the
> > correct unabbreviated version of the city's name. In fact it looks
> > incorrect to me.
> 
> > --Jarek
> 
> Since St-Catharines is of french origin, why don't you look at what they did 
> on the other side of your language border?
>   Sainte-Catherine
>   Sainte-Catherine-de-Hatley
>   Sainte-Adèle
>   etc
> 
> dega


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names (Jarek Piórkowski)

[Kevin Farrugia]

St. Catharines was founded by Loyalists, so they would have been English
speaking making comparing with Quebecois names isn't the greatest idea.
Ontario's place names generally have more in common with British convention
than with French/Quebecois historical conventions.  The city's corporate
name uses "St." as does all city and provincial spellings of their name.
In the end, the province has the authority to make a municipal name
"official" and their spelling is only ever found as "St." in any document.

-Kevin Farrugia
kevinfarru...@gmail.com

On 19 February 2018 at 15:31, Ga Delap  wrote:

> > Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 23:56:20 +0100
> > From: Jarek Piórkowski 
> > Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names
> > Message-ID:
>  gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> > ... It is not clear to me that "Saint Catharines" is the
> > correct unabbreviated version of the city's name. In fact it looks
> > incorrect to me.
>
> > --Jarek
>
> Since St-Catharines is of french origin, why don't you look at what they
> did on the other side of your language border?
>   Sainte-Catherine
>   Sainte-Catherine-de-Hatley
>   Sainte-Adèle
>   etc
>
> dega
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names (Jarek Piórkowski)

[Ga Delap]

> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 23:56:20 +0100
> From: Jarek Piórkowski 
> Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names
> Message-ID:

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

> ... It is not clear to me that "Saint Catharines" is the
> correct unabbreviated version of the city's name. In fact it looks
> incorrect to me.

> --Jarek

Since St-Catharines is of french origin, why don't you look at what they
did on the other side of your language border?
  Sainte-Catherine
  Sainte-Catherine-de-Hatley
  Sainte-Adèle
  etc

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

[Matthew Darwin]

On 2018-02-19 01:49 PM, Stewart C. Russell wrote:

Everything beyond the number and street name requires some abstraction,
and then a decision needs to be made over which authority one trusts.
You're doing great work with your consistency edits, but at some point,
completeness/consistency become very tiresome to reconcile.



Hi Stewart,

I really appreciate all your comments.

At some point I will indeed grow tired of doing edits of this nature.  
But hopefully by then the largest issues are improved. (80/20 rule).  
Additionally I hope to make the techniques I am using to find 
inconsistencies available as some sort of report so others can tackle 
the issues in their area(s) of interest.  The OSM inspector 
(https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/) is great, but it doesn't have 
Canada-specific rules to point out things we could improve.


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi Stewart,

Thanks for replying.


Stewart C. Russell wrote:


Alternately my proposal would be to:

   * change addr:state => addr:province

Yes: addr:state is always wrong in Canada, but addr:province might be
problematic for territories and First Nations reservations.


Yep.  Is there an alternate tag though?


   * add ~2.7 million missing  addr:province / addr:country where they
 don't exist

No. Please don't do that. We have boundaries for that, so all you would
be doing is adding redundant rows to the database.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses says:

Tags such as addr:country=*, addr:city=* and addr:postcode=* are
often redundant as features inside administrative boundaries
(when mapped) "inherit" their attributes as supported by
software such as Nominatim or Photon.


I really have no plans to do a huge edit to add what is essentially 
duplicate information. :-)



   * an then then to standardize what we are putting into those fields.
 eg for addr:province in Ontario

Yes, if there's an address that can show the need of having an
addr:province tag. The choice of value would be arbitrary: Ontario is
official, ON is a postal convention.


The wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr says for 
addr:province 
/: The 
//province //of the object. 
For Canada, uppercase two-letter postal abbreviations (//*BC*//, 
//*AB*//, //*ON*//, //*QC*//, etc.) are used. In Russia a synonym 
addr:region is widely used


/So it looks like the English abbreviation should be used, however, in 
practice it is not always.  Here are the top values in Canada:


  66885 
  41104 
  33222 
   7507 
   6089 
   4701 
   4258 
   4257 
   2790 
   2134 
   1742 
   1285 
   1019 
    799 
    778 
    518 
    323 
    278 
    234 
    219 
    219 
    199 
    166 

    163 
    122 
    117 
    113 
 89 
 66 
 62 
 43 
 43 
 37 
 35 
 27 
 27 
 24 
 23 
 21 
 21 
 17 
 14 
 14 
 13 v="Colombie-Britannique"/>

 12 
 11 


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi Matthew -

> If we want to be able generate mailing addresses from OSM (is that a
> valid use case?), then whatever the city address Canada Post thinks we
> are in needs to be tagged in some fashion.

It's *a* valid use case. But the only way to make OSM addresses
consistent with Canada Post addresses is to derive it from Canada Post's
Postal Code(OM) Address Data, which CP keeps adamantly closed. So we
can't have it in OSM.

> … "The name of the city as given in *postal addresses* of the
> building/area."   /(emphasis added)

That piece of your quotation reads like it was added later, and is a
generalization. In some places, the postal town in the town in which the
main sorting takes place. It can be some distance from the delivery
location, and in the case of islands, not always on the same piece of
land. So postal addresses exist for different purposes than geographic
addresses.

Everything beyond the number and street name requires some abstraction,
and then a decision needs to be made over which authority one trusts.
You're doing great work with your consistency edits, but at some point,
completeness/consistency become very tiresome to reconcile.

cheers,
 Stewart


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi matthew -

> I want to bump up this thread to see what other opinions are out there. 
> If you are supportive to remove the addr:province and addr:country tags
> in Canada, please speak up.

Speaking up here …

> Alternately my proposal would be to:
> 
>   * change addr:state => addr:province

Yes: addr:state is always wrong in Canada, but addr:province might be
problematic for territories and First Nations reservations.

>   * add ~2.7 million missing  addr:province / addr:country where they
> don't exist

No. Please don't do that. We have boundaries for that, so all you would
be doing is adding redundant rows to the database.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses says:

Tags such as addr:country=*, addr:city=* and addr:postcode=* are
often redundant as features inside administrative boundaries
(when mapped) "inherit" their attributes as supported by
software such as Nominatim or Photon.

The size of edit would be an essentially mechanical one, and it would be
up to whoever did it to verify that they were adding correct data. If it
comes down to pulling in the name from the
boundary=administrative;admin_level=4 that contains the point, what is
gained from doing this?

>   * an then then to standardize what we are putting into those fields. 
> eg for addr:province in Ontario

Yes, if there's an address that can show the need of having an
addr:province tag. The choice of value would be arbitrary: Ontario is
official, ON is a postal convention.

> If you don't like either of the above, I would really like to hear why
> having the tags in some places but not others is a good thing.

An address is defined in many ways: attached to a building way, an
explicit address node, interpolated from nearby addr:interpolation ways,
and possibly others. Should all of these have addr:province &
addr:country? As there are no doubt streets that cross provincial and
even country boundaries, any automated tagging process needs care and
oversight.

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi Clifford -

> Just one concern - Removing of addr:city. I encourage people to include
> addr:city since it's part of their mailing address and could easily be
> outside of the city limits.

There isn't the same hard link between cities and mailing addresses — at
least in Ontario. I live inside the Toronto boundary, and the city
addresses my tax bills to "my address, Toronto". Canada Post says my
address is "my address, Scarborough". (FWIW, Nominatim says I live in
"The Golden Mile, Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario, M1K 5H3, Canada". Which
just goes to show that we really need a free source of postal codes in
this country.)

It looks like I live outside the area that the Geographical Names Board
of Canada considers to be Toronto, though:
http://www4.rncan.gc.ca/search-place-names/unique/FEUZB . Looks like
they rendered their official decision just about the time of
Amalgamation - roughly 20 years ago - so they need to look at it again.

"It's complicated" is a fair summary.

 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

[Clifford Snow]

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Matthew Darwin  wrote:

> Hi Clifford,
>
> (It was good to meet you at SOTM US last year).
>
> Thanks for your comments... The situation with addr:city appears to me to
> be more complex than the situation with addr:province/addr:country, along
> the lines of what you are mentioning. My personal home mailing address
> cannot be resolved in OSM because the mailing address does not match any of
> the boundaries.  (OSM boundaries are correct, but the official post address
> cannot be resolved from the boundaries). So I have a feeling that addr:city
> is going to be required, at least in some cases.
>
> Do you have a view on addr:province/addr:state or addr:country?  US/Canada
> probably have more similarities than differences, so your input is very
> welcome.
>
I never include addr:province/state or addr:country when adding an address.
If I see one I leave it there since it isn't harming anything. I did just
go look at the last business [1] I added in Burnaby, BC. Looks like I
didn't add a province but did add the city.  I just checked in iD - it
knows that I'm editing in Canada so it has a province field. Very good iD!

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4933408221
-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi John,

If we want to be able generate mailing addresses from OSM (is that a 
valid use case?), then whatever the city address Canada Post thinks we 
are in needs to be tagged in some fashion.   Google maps and Bing maps 
both think I'm in "Kanata".  OSM thinks I'm in "Kanata North". Both 
are correct, in different ways.


If I we want to do reverse geo coding using OSM data, then the mailing 
address should be represented in some fashion because that's what 
people expect to see.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr says about addr:city: 
/May not be required if boundary=administrative 
 is 
used correctly. May or may not be a clone of is_in:city 
=* (in some places 
the city in the address corresponds to the post office that serves the 
area rather than the actual city, if any, in which the building is 
located)! The name of the city as given in *postal addresses* of the 
building/area. /(emphasis added)



BTW, this is one of the reasons I started all these discussions about  
aligning Canada OSM data... I was trying to use OSM to build a map for 
a community group and rather than just doing post-cleanup work on the 
map data in my own private copy, I thought it might be better to see 
what data we could align and make useful for everyone.  I'll only take 
it as far as consensus is achieved.



On 2018-02-19 11:25 AM, john whelan wrote:
So what we are saying is the city field should be filled in not with 
the physical city but with Canada Posts thoughts of the day?


Orleans is different.  It never was a municipality.

Cheerio John

On 19 February 2018 at 11:17, Matthew Darwin > wrote:


Hi John,

I live in Kanata.  If I type my "  Ottawa" into
the Canada Post lookup tool
(https://www.canadapost.ca/cpo/mc/personal/postalcode/fpc.jsf?LOCALE=en
),
it helpfully corrects me to "Kanata".   Same for old "City of
Nepean" addresses.   Try "1000 Palladium Drive, Kanata, ON"
(Canadian Tire Center).

As far as I know, within the City of Ottawa, everyone's postal
address uses the pre-amalgamted city names while the city hasn't
yet finished de-duplicating street names.   So addr:city should
probably be filled in accordingly.


On 2018-02-19 11:07 AM, john whelan wrote:

I seem to recall from talking to Canada Post that Orleans is
the only location for which that is true.  All of Orleans is
located within Ottawa. So how do you tag it?  It is within the
City of Ottawa these days.

Thanks John

On 19 February 2018 at 10:44, Matthew Darwin
mailto:matt...@mdarwin.ca>> wrote:

Hi Clifford,

(It was good to meet you at SOTM US last year).

Thanks for your comments... The situation with addr:city
appears to me to be more complex than the situation with
addr:province/addr:country, along the lines of what you are
mentioning. My personal home mailing address cannot be
resolved in OSM because the mailing address does not match
any of the boundaries.  (OSM boundaries are correct, but
the official post address cannot be resolved from the
boundaries). So I have a feeling that addr:city is going to
be required, at least in some cases.

Do you have a view on addr:province/addr:state or
addr:country? US/Canada probably have more similarities
than differences, so your input is very welcome.







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

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names in Ontario

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-02-18 11:04 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> 
>   2 Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville (Stouffville)

Like so many post-Amalgamation towns, Whitchurch-Stouffville is the
official name (http://www4.rncan.gc.ca/search-place-names/unique/FDOLC).
There are some real doozies out there: Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh,
Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield, Havelock-Belmont-Methuen …

Having spent several years working on a project in
Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh (just north of Goderich), the new name hadn't
exactly taken.

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

[john whelan]

So what we are saying is the city field should be filled in not with the
physical city but with Canada Posts thoughts of the day?

Orleans is different.  It never was a municipality.

Cheerio John

On 19 February 2018 at 11:17, Matthew Darwin  wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> I live in Kanata.  If I type my "  Ottawa" into the Canada
> Post lookup tool (https://www.canadapost.ca/cpo/mc/personal/postalcode/
> fpc.jsf?LOCALE=en), it helpfully corrects me to "Kanata".   Same for old
> "City of Nepean" addresses.   Try "1000 Palladium Drive, Kanata, ON"
> (Canadian Tire Center).
>
> As far as I know, within the City of Ottawa, everyone's postal address
> uses the pre-amalgamted city names while the city hasn't yet finished
> de-duplicating street names.   So addr:city should probably be filled in
> accordingly.
>
>
> On 2018-02-19 11:07 AM, john whelan wrote:
>
> I seem to recall from talking to Canada Post that Orleans is the only
> location for which that is true.  All of Orleans is located within Ottawa.
> So how do you tag it?  It is within the City of Ottawa these days.
>
> Thanks John
>
> On 19 February 2018 at 10:44, Matthew Darwin  wrote:
>
>> Hi Clifford,
>>
>> (It was good to meet you at SOTM US last year).
>>
>> Thanks for your comments... The situation with addr:city appears to me to
>> be more complex than the situation with addr:province/addr:country, along
>> the lines of what you are mentioning. My personal home mailing address
>> cannot be resolved in OSM because the mailing address does not match any of
>> the boundaries.  (OSM boundaries are correct, but the official post address
>> cannot be resolved from the boundaries). So I have a feeling that addr:city
>> is going to be required, at least in some cases.
>>
>> Do you have a view on addr:province/addr:state or addr:country?
>> US/Canada probably have more similarities than differences, so your input
>> is very welcome.
>>
>>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi John,

I live in Kanata.  If I type my "  Ottawa" into the 
Canada Post lookup tool 
(https://www.canadapost.ca/cpo/mc/personal/postalcode/fpc.jsf?LOCALE=en), 
it helpfully corrects me to "Kanata".   Same for old "City of Nepean" 
addresses.   Try "1000 Palladium Drive, Kanata, ON" (Canadian Tire 
Center).


As far as I know, within the City of Ottawa, everyone's postal address 
uses the pre-amalgamted city names while the city hasn't yet finished 
de-duplicating street names.   So addr:city should probably be filled 
in accordingly.



On 2018-02-19 11:07 AM, john whelan wrote:
I seem to recall from talking to Canada Post that Orleans is the 
only location for which that is true.  All of Orleans is located 
within Ottawa.  So how do you tag it?  It is within the City of 
Ottawa these days.


Thanks John

On 19 February 2018 at 10:44, Matthew Darwin > wrote:


Hi Clifford,

(It was good to meet you at SOTM US last year).

Thanks for your comments... The situation with addr:city appears
to me to be more complex than the situation with
addr:province/addr:country, along the lines of what you are
mentioning. My personal home mailing address cannot be resolved
in OSM because the mailing address does not match any of the
boundaries.  (OSM boundaries are correct, but the official post
address cannot be resolved from the boundaries). So I have a
feeling that addr:city is going to be required, at least in some
cases.

Do you have a view on addr:province/addr:state or addr:country?
US/Canada probably have more similarities than differences, so
your input is very welcome.




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

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

[john whelan]

I seem to recall from talking to Canada Post that Orleans is the only
location for which that is true.  All of Orleans is located within Ottawa.
So how do you tag it?  It is within the City of Ottawa these days.

Thanks John

On 19 February 2018 at 10:44, Matthew Darwin  wrote:

> Hi Clifford,
>
> (It was good to meet you at SOTM US last year).
>
> Thanks for your comments... The situation with addr:city appears to me to
> be more complex than the situation with addr:province/addr:country, along
> the lines of what you are mentioning. My personal home mailing address
> cannot be resolved in OSM because the mailing address does not match any of
> the boundaries.  (OSM boundaries are correct, but the official post address
> cannot be resolved from the boundaries). So I have a feeling that addr:city
> is going to be required, at least in some cases.
>
> Do you have a view on addr:province/addr:state or addr:country?  US/Canada
> probably have more similarities than differences, so your input is very
> welcome.
>
>
> On 2018-02-19 10:36 AM, Clifford Snow wrote:
>
> Matthew,
> Just one concern - Removing of addr:city. I encourage people to include
> addr:city since it's part of their mailing address and could easily be
> outside of the city limits. While addr:city isn't needed inside of city
> boundaries since it can be obtained from their spatial location, does make
> it much easier to full addresses from OSM. I would recommend not removing
> addr:city.
>
> My perspective is from the states where I'm familiar with how the US
> Postal service operates. If this isn't true in Canada - please ignore.
>
> Clifford
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:21 AM, Matthew Darwin 
> wrote:
>
>> I want to bump up this thread to see what other opinions are out there.
>> If you are supportive to remove the addr:province and addr:country tags in
>> Canada, please speak up.  I don't like making big changes with only 1
>> comment.  (If you like, feel free to reply privately to me avoid bombarding
>> the list with "me too" and I will summarize the replies on the list).
>> Prior to starting this discussion, I too have been removing these tags when
>> I come across them (a few places in London, ON had country=US???)
>>
>> Alternately my proposal would be to:
>>
>>- change addr:state => addr:province
>>- add ~2.7 million missing  addr:province / addr:country where they
>>don't exist
>>- an then then to standardize what we are putting into those fields.
>>eg for addr:province in Ontario: ON, on, Ontario, ONTARIO, Ont, ont, or 
>> the
>>several other variations that exist today.  ("ON" is most popular, 
>> followed
>>by "Ontario")
>>
>> If you don't like either of the above, I would really like to hear why
>> having the tags in some places but not others is a good thing.  As you may
>> have noticed based on my posts over the last few weeks that I like to have
>> things (more) consistent, unless there is a (good) reason not to be
>> consistent.
>>
>>
>> On 2018-02-16 12:52 PM, Alan Richards wrote:
>>
>> I typically remove these tags when I come across them, as yes, I've heard
>> the same argument that they're redundant.
>>
>> I like all this cleanup you've been doing with phone numbers, addresses,
>> etc. Kudos!
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Matthew Darwin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> During the discussion of cleaning up municipality names in Canada, it
>>> was suggested that the addr:city could be removed entirely if the
>>> appropriate boundaries are defined.   I would hazard to guess (and will
>>> endeavour to investigate) that the addr:city and the boundaries do not
>>> always align in Canada (there are ~11300 administrative boundaries of some
>>> type and there are ~7000 unique addr:city tags)... so this will be a much
>>> more long term effort.
>>>
>>> However, the provincial/territorial boundaries are defined, so removing
>>> the addr:country, addr:provice and addr:state tags might be a more
>>> reasonable at this time.  (addr:country is used ~94% less than addr:street)
>>>
>>> Tags, by number of occurrences:
>>>
>>>  167902 addr:country
>>>
>>>   33252 addr:state
>>>
>>>  179741 addr:province
>>>
>>> 2950115 addr:city
>>>
>>> 2942159 addr:street
>>>
>>> 2934341 addr:housenumber
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi Clifford,

(It was good to meet you at SOTM US last year).

Thanks for your comments... The situation with addr:city appears to me 
to be more complex than the situation with addr:province/addr:country, 
along the lines of what you are mentioning. My personal home mailing 
address cannot be resolved in OSM because the mailing address does not 
match any of the boundaries.  (OSM boundaries are correct, but the 
official post address cannot be resolved from the boundaries). So I 
have a feeling that addr:city is going to be required, at least in 
some cases.


Do you have a view on addr:province/addr:state or addr:country?  
US/Canada probably have more similarities than differences, so your 
input is very welcome.



On 2018-02-19 10:36 AM, Clifford Snow wrote:

Matthew,
Just one concern - Removing of addr:city. I encourage people to 
include addr:city since it's part of their mailing address and could 
easily be outside of the city limits. While addr:city isn't needed 
inside of city boundaries since it can be obtained from their 
spatial location, does make it much easier to full addresses from 
OSM. I would recommend not removing addr:city.


My perspective is from the states where I'm familiar with how the US 
Postal service operates. If this isn't true in Canada - please ignore.


Clifford

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:21 AM, Matthew Darwin > wrote:


I want to bump up this thread to see what other opinions are out
there.  If you are supportive to remove the addr:province and
addr:country tags in Canada, please speak up.  I don't like
making big changes with only 1 comment.  (If you like, feel free
to reply privately to me avoid bombarding the list with "me too"
and I will summarize the replies on the list).  Prior to
starting this discussion, I too have been removing these tags
when I come across them (a few places in London, ON had
country=US???)

Alternately my proposal would be to:

  * change addr:state => addr:province
  * add ~2.7 million missing  addr:province / addr:country where
they don't exist
  * an then then to standardize what we are putting into those
fields.  eg for addr:province in Ontario: ON, on, Ontario,
ONTARIO, Ont, ont, or the several other variations that
exist today.  ("ON" is most popular, followed by "Ontario")

If you don't like either of the above, I would really like to
hear why having the tags in some places but not others is a good
thing.  As you may have noticed based on my posts over the last
few weeks that I like to have things (more) consistent, unless
there is a (good) reason not to be consistent.


On 2018-02-16 12:52 PM, Alan Richards wrote:

I typically remove these tags when I come across them, as yes,
I've heard the same argument that they're redundant.

I like all this cleanup you've been doing with phone numbers,
addresses, etc. Kudos!

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Matthew Darwin
mailto:matt...@mdarwin.ca>> wrote:

Hi all,

During the discussion of cleaning up municipality names in
Canada, it was suggested that the addr:city could be
removed entirely if the appropriate boundaries are
defined.   I would hazard to guess (and will endeavour to
investigate) that the addr:city and the boundaries do not
always align in Canada (there are ~11300 administrative
boundaries of some type and there are ~7000 unique
addr:city tags)... so this will be a much more long term
effort.

However, the provincial/territorial boundaries are defined,
so removing the addr:country, addr:provice and addr:state
tags might be a more reasonable at this time. 
(addr:country is used ~94% less than addr:street)

Tags, by number of occurrences:

 167902 addr:country

  33252 addr:state

 179741 addr:province

2950115 addr:city

2942159 addr:street

2934341 addr:housenumber





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





--
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us 
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch


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

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

[Clifford Snow]

Matthew,
Just one concern - Removing of addr:city. I encourage people to include
addr:city since it's part of their mailing address and could easily be
outside of the city limits. While addr:city isn't needed inside of city
boundaries since it can be obtained from their spatial location, does make
it much easier to full addresses from OSM. I would recommend not removing
addr:city.

My perspective is from the states where I'm familiar with how the US Postal
service operates. If this isn't true in Canada - please ignore.

Clifford

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:21 AM, Matthew Darwin  wrote:

> I want to bump up this thread to see what other opinions are out there.
> If you are supportive to remove the addr:province and addr:country tags in
> Canada, please speak up.  I don't like making big changes with only 1
> comment.  (If you like, feel free to reply privately to me avoid bombarding
> the list with "me too" and I will summarize the replies on the list).
> Prior to starting this discussion, I too have been removing these tags when
> I come across them (a few places in London, ON had country=US???)
>
> Alternately my proposal would be to:
>
>- change addr:state => addr:province
>- add ~2.7 million missing  addr:province / addr:country where they
>don't exist
>- an then then to standardize what we are putting into those fields.
>eg for addr:province in Ontario: ON, on, Ontario, ONTARIO, Ont, ont, or the
>several other variations that exist today.  ("ON" is most popular, followed
>by "Ontario")
>
> If you don't like either of the above, I would really like to hear why
> having the tags in some places but not others is a good thing.  As you may
> have noticed based on my posts over the last few weeks that I like to have
> things (more) consistent, unless there is a (good) reason not to be
> consistent.
>
>
> On 2018-02-16 12:52 PM, Alan Richards wrote:
>
> I typically remove these tags when I come across them, as yes, I've heard
> the same argument that they're redundant.
>
> I like all this cleanup you've been doing with phone numbers, addresses,
> etc. Kudos!
>
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Matthew Darwin 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> During the discussion of cleaning up municipality names in Canada, it was
>> suggested that the addr:city could be removed entirely if the appropriate
>> boundaries are defined.   I would hazard to guess (and will endeavour to
>> investigate) that the addr:city and the boundaries do not always align in
>> Canada (there are ~11300 administrative boundaries of some type and there
>> are ~7000 unique addr:city tags)... so this will be a much more long term
>> effort.
>>
>> However, the provincial/territorial boundaries are defined, so removing
>> the addr:country, addr:provice and addr:state tags might be a more
>> reasonable at this time.  (addr:country is used ~94% less than addr:street)
>>
>> Tags, by number of occurrences:
>>
>>  167902 addr:country
>>
>>   33252 addr:state
>>
>>  179741 addr:province
>>
>> 2950115 addr:city
>>
>> 2942159 addr:street
>>
>> 2934341 addr:housenumber
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup of addr:country, addr:province, addr:state

[Matthew Darwin]

I want to bump up this thread to see what other opinions are out 
there.  If you are supportive to remove the addr:province and 
addr:country tags in Canada, please speak up.  I don't like making big 
changes with only 1 comment.  (If you like, feel free to reply 
privately to me avoid bombarding the list with "me too" and I will 
summarize the replies on the list).  Prior to starting this 
discussion, I too have been removing these tags when I come across 
them (a few places in London, ON had country=US???)


Alternately my proposal would be to:

 * change addr:state => addr:province
 * add ~2.7 million missing  addr:province / addr:country where they
   don't exist
 * an then then to standardize what we are putting into those
   fields.  eg for addr:province in Ontario: ON, on, Ontario,
   ONTARIO, Ont, ont, or the several other variations that exist
   today.  ("ON" is most popular, followed by "Ontario")

If you don't like either of the above, I would really like to hear why 
having the tags in some places but not others is a good thing. As you 
may have noticed based on my posts over the last few weeks that I like 
to have things (more) consistent, unless there is a (good) reason not 
to be consistent.



On 2018-02-16 12:52 PM, Alan Richards wrote:
I typically remove these tags when I come across them, as yes, I've 
heard the same argument that they're redundant.


I like all this cleanup you've been doing with phone numbers, 
addresses, etc. Kudos!


On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Matthew Darwin > wrote:


Hi all,

During the discussion of cleaning up municipality names in
Canada, it was suggested that the addr:city could be removed
entirely if the appropriate boundaries are defined.   I would
hazard to guess (and will endeavour to investigate) that the
addr:city and the boundaries do not always align in Canada
(there are ~11300 administrative boundaries of some type and
there are ~7000 unique addr:city tags)... so this will be a much
more long term effort.

However, the provincial/territorial boundaries are defined, so
removing the addr:country, addr:provice and addr:state tags
might be a more reasonable at this time. (addr:country is used
~94% less than addr:street)

Tags, by number of occurrences:

 167902 addr:country

  33252 addr:state

 179741 addr:province

2950115 addr:city

2942159 addr:street

2934341 addr:housenumber




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

Re: [Talk-ca] Formatting of Municipality Names in Ontario

[Matthew Darwin]

Yes, I plan to do some systematic review of the admin_level tags 
comparing them to addr:city / addr:suburb.   This way the community 
can have a data-based discussion on if addr:city etc tags are needed, 
or the bounaries are good enough or whatever. But first step, we need 
some analysis.


However, I don't have enough spare compute to run all those 
calculations at a canada level.  (My plan is to load a subset of 
canada.osm into postgis and run queries against it.)  Does anyone have 
spare compute they can loan to this project?  Or alternate plan that 
needs less compute.   Using QA tiles might be nice, but QA tiles 
doesn't include relations.



On 2018-02-19 12:40 AM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

It's good to see that admin_level tags (always 8?  they might be 7 if township, that's a 
chunky topic...) are there.  What I mean by "cutting room floor recycling" 
includes this thought:  it couldn't hurt to update/touch-up/fix these after a cursory 
examination that's they are thumbs-up/thumbs-down, need a touch-up.

SteveA


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