English mappers have argued for "St" as different to "Saint", see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Abbreviation_.28don.27t_do_it.29 https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/19609/saint-or-st-is-there-an-official-osm-policy
I don't know how North Americans feel about "St." vs. "Saint" but that may not be the same case as England. Back to the original post: "Mt." really looks like an abbreviation and name would appear/read/sound correct when spelled in full with "Mount". So it would be for me: name=Mount Lebanon official_name=Mt. Lebanon short_name, alt_name if need for other variations My 2 cents -- althio On 26 July 2017 at 12:18, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Clifford Snow <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Saint Paul - but that certainly is an exception. >> >> I was using a garmin gps device to navigate about 4 years ago. As I >> entered Mount Vernon, WA the voice called it Mountain Vernon. >> >> Albert Pundt suggestion to use offical_name or name_official would help. >> But keeping with OSM ground truth, we could use the official name, for >> example name='St. Louis' and name_full='Saint Louis' for pronunciation. > > > Is expanding abbreviations really inconsistent with the ground truth? Kinda > thought this was long since settled as "no, it is not inconsistent, and is > preferable to using abbreviations" and perhaps the abbreviation should be in > "short_name" instead. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
