Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

previous_name isn't documented -- and seems a bad idea. It's unlikely to be searchable with Nominatim, and won't be rendered. This is the scheme some of us are using in Bristol https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Bristol#Lifecycle. In an ideal world (!) I'd say use something

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

Is there a tag being used to add these to OSM? On 08/05/2018 13:14, David Woolley wrote: On 08/05/18 13:10, Dave F wrote: I've changed over to using disused:shop=* as it keeps the use of the shop in the tag. Due to shop classifications they often reopen with businesses of a similar nature.

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

On 08/05/18 13:10, Dave F wrote: I've changed over to using disused:shop=* as it keeps the use of the shop in the tag. Due to shop classifications they often reopen with businesses of a similar nature. (food, clothes etc) That reflects the planning classification (which are actually more fine

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

On 07/05/2018 20:27, Brian Prangle wrote: The answer to the question I posed originally seems to be either  "never" or "immediately". Maplin I understand waiting some more time for the liquidation process to complete. For clarity the mechanical edit would be shop=vacant and previous_name=

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

And some with an apostrophe: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=Lloyd+TSB#values -- Andrew From: Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com> Sent: 08 May 2018 00:19:36 To: Brian Prangle Cc: Talk-GB Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us >Lloyds and T

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

>Lloyds and TSB banks demerged 5 years ago - yet we still have 180 branches with the old name. We also have 7 mapped as "LLoyds TSB", 5 as "Lloyds TSB Bank", 4 as "Lloyds TSB Scotland" 3 as (dubious) "Lloyds/TSB", 1 as "LLoyds TSB Bank", 1 as "Lloyds TSB" (double space), 1 as "Lloyd's TSB", 1

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

Chesterfield's Maplins seems to be (as of this morning) still hanging on in there - they haven't got as far as selling off the shelving yet (which will surely come).

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

>So we maintain the accurate mapping ... and map what is seen. That's fine but (in my opinion) what I see is: - A building, probably with a name like "Unit 2". - No shop and therefore nothing to have a shop name. - And an old sign. This is therefore what I shall be mapping when I come across

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

On 05/05/18 23:41, Rob Nickerson wrote: If an old sign still exists then this should be mapped *as a sign* not as a shop. With a number of other closures around here, premisses are remaining empty for a LONG time, and with no one taking over the buildings remain as they were, just not open.

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

Hi, On 05.05.2018 12:57, Rob Nickerson wrote: > Frederik's view is that a crap map encourages more people to edit. Not quite. My view is that a crap map doesn't become a non-crap map by erasing one obviously false name, and I was thinking more of our relationship with the map user and not so

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

The reason I said "full removal preferred" was because on a shop=* feature, my understanding is that the name tag relates to the shop. So no shop equals no shop to have a name. If an old sign still exists then this should be mapped *as a sign* not as a shop. So perhaps we need to edit these to

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

On 06/05/18 00:24, Andy Mabbett wrote: On 5 May 2018 at 14:24, Adam Snape wrote: I too disagree with intentionally ignoring outdated information. +1 However, we cannot know from our armchairs whether a store is disused but still signed What if t is? It is no longer

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

On 05/05/18 13:03, Andy Townsend wrote: Taking as read the arguments in for and against a mechanical edit for possibly closed shops* it'd be great if shops that we definitely know are now closed could be properly tagged as what they are now, so for example

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

On 05/05/2018 16:36, Andy Townsend wrote: > Indeed  - and in the case of named stores (open or shut) which act as > landmarks, there are at least some people (including me) actually > consuming that data.  Please don't remove a name until it really has > been removed. +1 -- helps me mapping too,

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

On 05/05/2018 14:24, Adam Snape wrote: However, we cannot know from our armchairs whether a store is disused but still signed, disused with all signage removed, demolished, or replaced by another business. Because if this we cannot fix the map merely by deleting the relevant shops. That is

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

On 5 May 2018 at 14:24, Adam Snape wrote: > I too disagree with intentionally ignoring outdated information. +1 > However, we cannot know from our armchairs whether a store is disused but > still signed What if t is? It is no longer an outlet for that brand. There are

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

I concur with this. I'd much rather have an up to date map. Part of OSM's USP is its quick turnarounds. I disagree with Frederik's claim that changing one entity would "destroy the valuable information that this general area of the map hasn't been updated". It seems perverse to want to

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

On Sat, 5 May 2018, 12:00 Rob Nickerson, wrote: > And for the balance: I disagree with Frederik on this one. > A crap map could also put people off - "why bother, OSM is so far behind, > I'll contribute to/just use Google maps instead" > > I think i agree with this.

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

Taking as read the arguments in for and against a mechanical edit for possibly closed shops* it'd be great if shops that we definitely know are now closed could be properly tagged as what they are now, so for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1485964357#map=19/53.98855/-1.09350 can

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

On 4 May 2018 at 20:10, Brian Prangle wrote: > When will it be appropriate to do a mechanical edit and remove the 47 > instances of this store that can be seen in Overpass? Maybe we should change them all to "Toys Яn't Us"? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing

[Talk-GB] Toys R Us

And for the balance: I disagree with Frederik on this one. If we know the map is wrong we should fix it. We should not leave it just because it may encourage others to fix it and then go on to do other local edits. Frederik's view is that a crap map encourages more people to edit. I'm not

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

On 5 May 2018 10:02:01 BST, Frederik Ramm wrote: >Hi, > >On 05/04/2018 09:10 PM, Brian Prangle wrote: >> When will it be  appropriate to do a mechanical edit and remove the >47 >> instances of this store that can be seen in Overpass? Have they all >> closed now?  My local one

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

Hi, On 05/04/2018 09:10 PM, Brian Prangle wrote: > When will it be  appropriate to do a mechanical edit and remove the 47 > instances of this store that can be seen in Overpass? Have they all > closed now?  My local one is now closed and leaving a large gap on its > retail  park

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

On 4 May 2018 21:04:29 BST, Paul Berry wrote: >Perhaps appropriate when the signage is taken down from any of their >former >stores en masse. In the meantime nothing stopping you mechanically >adding >disused :shop

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

On 04/05/18 20:10, Brian Prangle wrote: When will it be  appropriate to do a mechanical edit and remove the 47 instances of this store that can be seen in Overpass? Have they all closed now?  My local one is now closed and leaving a large gap on its retail  park Just a note for if you do do

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

Perhaps appropriate when the signage is taken down from any of their former stores en masse. In the meantime nothing stopping you mechanically adding disused :shop =yes

[Talk-GB] Toys R Us

Hi everyone When will it be appropriate to do a mechanical edit and remove the 47 instances of this store that can be seen in Overpass? Have they all closed now? My local one is now closed and leaving a large gap on its retail park Ditto Maplins Regards Brian