Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Neil Matthews]

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 like disused:name /
proposed:name.

  * disused:name / proposed:name would be searchable.
  * proposed:name and disused:name would both be rendered (at lower
priority to name) and "faintly"
  * validation support

No idea how such a Utopia might be achieved though.

Neil


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=  whichever variant of the
> Toys R us name is present; which preserves the shop amenity  with a
> change of use and preserves the "landmark" data, which I hope answers
> some of the concerns raised so far. Maintaining map data surely has to
> be a mix of automation and hand-crafted, not a zealot position of one
> to the exclusion of the other. If we know data to be inaccurate and
> there is an easy fix surely we're bounden to users of our map to make
> it the best we can. If we adopt Frederick's position(which I see,
> rightly or wrongly, as a quest for ideological purity) we put
> community  before users, when I see it has to be a balance between the
> two. What's the point of  building a map if we don't make it as
> accurate and complete as possible,/*as soon as possible*/? Otherwise
> it's in danger of becoming purely a thing of beauty hand-crafted by
> dedicated hobbyists, with  no thought for all those who have decided
> to use our map.
>
> How long should we wait for a mapper to verify something that's
> changed? Lloyds and TSB  banks demerged 5 years ago - yet we still
> have 180 branches with the old name. Likewise the Territorial Army
> changed name 6 years ago and we still have 27 instances of the old
> name. So how about  volunteers for a campaign to contact local mappers
> and gently encourage them to update the map?
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>
>
> On 5 May 2018 at 11:57, Rob Nickerson  > wrote:
>
> 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 convinced. 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 agree that a *blank* map encourages new mappers, but that was 10
> years ago! Less convinced that an out of date map does. At least
> not with our current homepage or if we do get a new mapper its
> most likely to be a single edit (maybe with MapsMe) rather than a
> new prolific mapper. 
>
> So I'm happy with this mechanical edit (full removal preferred,
> but addition of disussed ok too).
>
> Rob
>
> P.s. Do we still have cases of Lloyds TSB in OSM?
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Dave F]

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. (food, clothes etc)


That reflects the planning classification (which are actually more 
fine grained than the OSM landuses). 

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[David Woolley]

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 
grained than the OSM landuses). 

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Dave F]

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=


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)


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Andrew Hain]

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 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 as "Lloyds TSB Bank Plc", 1 as 
"Lloyds TSB Bank PLC" and 1 as "Lloyds-TSB".

But on the plus side... um, no, that's lost on me!

Sigh.

Rob


On Mon, 7 May 2018 at 20:27, Brian Prangle 
<bpran...@gmail.com<mailto:bpran...@gmail.com>> 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=  whichever variant of the Toys R us name is present; which 
preserves the shop amenity  with a change of use and preserves the "landmark" 
data, which I hope answers some of the concerns raised so far. Maintaining map 
data surely has to be a mix of automation and hand-crafted, not a zealot 
position of one to the exclusion of the other. If we know data to be inaccurate 
and there is an easy fix surely we're bounden to users of our map to make it 
the best we can. If we adopt Frederick's position(which I see, rightly or 
wrongly, as a quest for ideological purity) we put community  before users, 
when I see it has to be a balance between the two. What's the point of  
building a map if we don't make it as accurate and complete as possible, as 
soon as possible? Otherwise it's in danger of becoming purely a thing of beauty 
hand-crafted by dedicated hobbyists, with  no thought for all those who have 
decided to use our map.

How long should we wait for a mapper to verify something that's changed? Lloyds 
and TSB  banks demerged 5 years ago - yet we still have 180 branches with the 
old name. Likewise the Territorial Army changed name 6 years ago and we still 
have 27 instances of the old name. So how about  volunteers for a campaign to 
contact local mappers and gently encourage them to update the map?

Regards

Brian


On 5 May 2018 at 11:57, Rob Nickerson 
<rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com<mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote:
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 
convinced. 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 agree that a blank map encourages new mappers, but that was 10 years ago! 
Less convinced that an out of date map does. At least not with our current 
homepage or if we do get a new mapper its most likely to be a single edit 
(maybe with MapsMe) rather than a new prolific mapper.

So I'm happy with this mechanical edit (full removal preferred, but addition of 
disussed ok too).

Rob

P.s. Do we still have cases of Lloyds TSB in OSM?

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Rob Nickerson]

>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 as "Lloyds TSB Bank
Plc", 1 as "Lloyds TSB Bank PLC" and 1 as "Lloyds-TSB".

But on the plus side... um, no, that's lost on me!

Sigh.

*Rob*


On Mon, 7 May 2018 at 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=  whichever variant of the Toys R us name is
> present; which preserves the shop amenity  with a change of use and
> preserves the "landmark" data, which I hope answers some of the concerns
> raised so far. Maintaining map data surely has to be a mix of automation
> and hand-crafted, not a zealot position of one to the exclusion of the
> other. If we know data to be inaccurate and there is an easy fix surely
> we're bounden to users of our map to make it the best we can. If we adopt
> Frederick's position(which I see, rightly or wrongly, as a quest for
> ideological purity) we put community  before users, when I see it has to be
> a balance between the two. What's the point of  building a map if we don't
> make it as accurate and complete as possible,* as soon as possible*?
> Otherwise it's in danger of becoming purely a thing of beauty hand-crafted
> by dedicated hobbyists, with  no thought for all those who have decided to
> use our map.
>
> How long should we wait for a mapper to verify something that's changed?
> Lloyds and TSB  banks demerged 5 years ago - yet we still have 180 branches
> with the old name. Likewise the Territorial Army changed name 6 years ago
> and we still have 27 instances of the old name. So how about  volunteers
> for a campaign to contact local mappers and gently encourage them to update
> the map?
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>
>
> On 5 May 2018 at 11:57, Rob Nickerson  wrote:
>
>> 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 convinced. 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 agree that a *blank* map encourages new mappers, but that was 10 years
>> ago! Less convinced that an out of date map does. At least not with our
>> current homepage or if we do get a new mapper its most likely to be a
>> single edit (maybe with MapsMe) rather than a new prolific mapper.
>>
>> So I'm happy with this mechanical edit (full removal preferred, but
>> addition of disussed ok too).
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> P.s. Do we still have cases of Lloyds TSB in OSM?
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[ajt1047]

  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).From: Paul BerrySent: Friday, 4 May 2018 21:05To: Brian PrangleCc: Talk GBSubject: Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R UsPerhaps 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

to all instances now, I would think.Is there precedent on OSM for this? What are the plans for the 200 or so Maplin stores?Regards,PaulOn 4 May 2018 at 20:10, Brian Prangle  wrote:Hi everyoneWhen 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  parkDitto MaplinsRegardsBrian
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Rob Nickerson]

>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 them.


Rob


On Sat, 5 May 2018, 23:41 Rob Nickerson,  wrote:

> 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 remove the shop tag and name tag and
> to add an advertising=sign tag and message=Toys R Us tag.
>
> To me this feels like the most appropriate OSM tags to use.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Rob
>
>
> On Sat, 5 May 2018, 11:57 Rob Nickerson, 
> wrote:
>
>> 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 convinced. 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 agree that a *blank* map encourages new mappers, but that was 10 years
>> ago! Less convinced that an out of date map does. At least not with our
>> current homepage or if we do get a new mapper its most likely to be a
>> single edit (maybe with MapsMe) rather than a new prolific mapper.
>>
>> So I'm happy with this mechanical edit (full removal preferred, but
>> addition of disussed ok too).
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> P.s. Do we still have cases of Lloyds TSB in OSM?
>>
>
> On 5 May 2018 11:57 a.m., "Rob Nickerson" 
> wrote:
>
> 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
> convinced. 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 agree that a *blank* map encourages new mappers, but that was 10 years
> ago! Less convinced that an out of date map does. At least not with our
> current homepage or if we do get a new mapper its most likely to be a
> single edit (maybe with MapsMe) rather than a new prolific mapper.
>
> So I'm happy with this mechanical edit (full removal preferred, but
> addition of disussed ok too).
>
> Rob
>
> P.s. Do we still have cases of Lloyds TSB in OSM?
>
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Lester Caine]

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. If I am using the map to navigate, and the 
place I want is 'around the back of X' then the building X is what I am 
looking for. UNTIL the building identity changes to some new use it 
should be mapped as it appears. If the signage is taken down then rather 
than 'shop-closed-ToyRUs' it should change to 'shop-closed' but I don't 
see much movement on signage being taken down on other closed 
businesses? So we maintain the accurate mapping ... and map what is seen.


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Frederik Ramm]

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 much of encouraging mappers.

But I haven't used the word "crap map". OpenStreetMap is generally
great, and it might have the occasional weak spot.

What is being suggested here is what a commercial map maker would do:
Let's take measures to hide the weak spots of our product, so that we
can shine without blemish.

But we ware not a commercial map maker. We can afford to, and should, be
honest with our map consumers. And that includes admitting that none of
our volunteers has had the time to re-visit the area since Toys R Us
went belly-up.

My view is that the map is actually *better* for the consumer if we are
honest with them, because we're including an easily decodable marker
about its quality. A marker that even people who cannot use any OSM QA
tools will understand without extra training.

Rob is of course right that removing the store without re-surveying the
area does remove one error from the map and therefore makes it a tiny
little bit more correct. I'm just arguing for keeping the error until we
can afford to make it much more correct. If that takes a few months then
we have to live with that; doing it right takes time and I'm pretty sure
that doing it right is one thing our users love us for.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Rob Nickerson]

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 remove the shop tag and name tag and to
add an advertising=sign tag and message=Toys R Us tag.

To me this feels like the most appropriate OSM tags to use.

What do you think?

Rob


On Sat, 5 May 2018, 11:57 Rob Nickerson,  wrote:

> 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
> convinced. 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 agree that a *blank* map encourages new mappers, but that was 10 years
> ago! Less convinced that an out of date map does. At least not with our
> current homepage or if we do get a new mapper its most likely to be a
> single edit (maybe with MapsMe) rather than a new prolific mapper.
>
> So I'm happy with this mechanical edit (full removal preferred, but
> addition of disussed ok too).
>
> Rob
>
> P.s. Do we still have cases of Lloyds TSB in OSM?
>

On 5 May 2018 11:57 a.m., "Rob Nickerson"  wrote:

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
convinced. 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 agree that a *blank* map encourages new mappers, but that was 10 years
ago! Less convinced that an out of date map does. At least not with our
current homepage or if we do get a new mapper its most likely to be a
single edit (maybe with MapsMe) rather than a new prolific mapper.

So I'm happy with this mechanical edit (full removal preferred, but
addition of disussed ok too).

Rob

P.s. Do we still have cases of Lloyds TSB in OSM?
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Warin]

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 an outlet for that brand.

There are buildings near where I live with Victorian "ghost signs" for
the shops that once occupied them.




? umm use tag of disused:shop=* and name=*.

The old historic signs .. add an approximate start and end dates?
I'd have these as separate nodes and I'd copy them across to OHM.
This way if they are removed, there past existence is preserved in OHM.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Borbus]

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 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1485964357#map=19/53.98855/-1.09350 
can then be rendered as 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=21=53.988577=-1.0934931 
and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3265969285 as 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=20=53.9879136=-1.049185 
.


I don't think anybody is arguing that vacant shops should be 
mechanically removed, just that they might become disused:amenity etc. I 
never remove the name until the sign has gone. I would love it if the 
renders actually showed this, though. The amenity icon will go, but it's 
not completely clear that the amenity no longer really exists.


Happy mapping,

Borbus.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Neil Matthews]

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, especially if several adjacent shops are
disused, removing the names doesn't help me to update the new one if
there are several candidates.
Plus, you want the name rendered, and searchable (via Nominatim) for
instructions like "Meet me by the (old) Toys R Us".

Neil


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Andy Townsend]

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 replacing a blatant 
errors in the map with less obvious ones.


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.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Andy Mabbett]

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 buildings near where I live with Victorian "ghost signs" for
the shops that once occupied them.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Dave F]

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 keep an area of the map inaccurate.

Can't speak for everyone, but I would edit my local one from my 
armchair. No need to visit as all the details are provide online from 
local news feeds.

So individual or mechanical edits make little difference.

On balance I think a store tagged as disused is more likely to attract 
updates than one that's inaccurately tagged as open.


DaveF


On 05/05/2018 11:57, Rob Nickerson wrote:

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 convinced. 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 agree that a *blank* map encourages new mappers, but that was 10 
years ago! Less convinced that an out of date map does. At least not 
with our current homepage or if we do get a new mapper its most likely 
to be a single edit (maybe with MapsMe) rather than a new prolific 
mapper.


So I'm happy with this mechanical edit (full removal preferred, but 
addition of disussed ok too).


Rob

P.s. Do we still have cases of Lloyds TSB in OSM?


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Andrew Black]

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.

The external view needs to be kept up to date.
A tag the indicates approx date it closed would be nice (leave it someone
else to suggest a syntax).


>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Andy Townsend]

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 then be rendered as 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=21=53.988577=-1.0934931 
and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3265969285 as 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=20=53.9879136=-1.049185 
.


I'm not making a case for any particular way of mapping vacant shops 
(I'll try and reflect what's in the database) but just deleting the shop 
nodes for them doesn't make sense when they're still major landmarks.  
Former BHSes are still pretty noticeable even long after closure; some 
former Blockbusters even more so (quite a few retain the colour scheme - 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116338603/history for example has new 
signage designed around it).


Best Regards,

Andy


* OSM's equivalent of brexit discussions - everyone just restates their 
case and no-one listens.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Andy Mabbett]

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
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

[Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Rob Nickerson]

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
convinced. 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 agree that a *blank* map encourages new mappers, but that was 10 years
ago! Less convinced that an out of date map does. At least not with our
current homepage or if we do get a new mapper its most likely to be a
single edit (maybe with MapsMe) rather than a new prolific mapper.

So I'm happy with this mechanical edit (full removal preferred, but
addition of disussed ok too).

Rob

P.s. Do we still have cases of Lloyds TSB in OSM?
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Chris Hill]

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 is now closed and leaving a large gap on
>its
>> retail  park
>
>
>
>Obviously-outdated POIs are the standard user interface for maps to
>signal their age and quality. If you take a paper map today, and it
>features a chain restaurant that you know went out of business five
>years ago, you immediately have an idea of how old/trustworthy the rest
>of the map is.
>
>OSM can benefit from this same mechanism. Leave the Toys R Us-es in
>place until a local mapper re-surveys the area which might include
>mapping any number of other nearby POIs, updating opening times, and
>whatnot.
>
>It is easy to run a script that removes all the Toys R Us-es, but that
>script would also destroy the valuable information that this general
>area of the map hasn't been updated since Toys R Us went bankrupt.
>
>If you could run a script that truly updates the map in the area that
>would be another thing, but you cannot; you can only run a script that
>removes the obvious "this map is outdated" marker. That might make the
>map *look* more current but actually it isn't - the script would just
>be
>window dressing.
>
>
>

I agree with Frederik wholeheartedly.

-- 
Chris Hill
( OSM: chillly)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Frederik Ramm]

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



Obviously-outdated POIs are the standard user interface for maps to
signal their age and quality. If you take a paper map today, and it
features a chain restaurant that you know went out of business five
years ago, you immediately have an idea of how old/trustworthy the rest
of the map is.

OSM can benefit from this same mechanism. Leave the Toys R Us-es in
place until a local mapper re-surveys the area which might include
mapping any number of other nearby POIs, updating opening times, and
whatnot.

It is easy to run a script that removes all the Toys R Us-es, but that
script would also destroy the valuable information that this general
area of the map hasn't been updated since Toys R Us went bankrupt.

If you could run a script that truly updates the map in the area that
would be another thing, but you cannot; you can only run a script that
removes the obvious "this map is outdated" marker. That might make the
map *look* more current but actually it isn't - the script would just be
window dressing.



Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Philip Barnes]

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
>=yes
> to all instances
>now,
>I would think.
>
>Is there precedent on OSM for this? What are the plans for the 200 or
>so
>Maplin stores?

At present Maplin are still open and not sure if they have a closing date. I'm 
still hoping they are saved as there is no get it now alternative. 

My local maplin has this sign in the window, mentioned this week by Chris 
Hawkins 
https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/business/2018/05/01/before-you-ask-were-closing-sign-of-the-times-at-shrewsbury-maplin-store/

So until it happens and probably becomes yet another coffee shop we should do 
nothing. 

Phil (trigpoint) 

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Borbus]

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 this: the shop in my town was named 'Toys Я 
Us' with alt_name set to 'Toys "R" Us'. Worth adding those alternatives 
to your search as the second one at least is probably used a lot.


Happy mapping,

Borbus.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Paul Berry]

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
 to all instances now,
I would think.

Is there precedent on OSM for this? What are the plans for the 200 or so
Maplin stores?

Regards,
*Paul*

On 4 May 2018 at 20:10, Brian Prangle  wrote:

> 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
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Brian Prangle]

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