I'm relatively new to OSM, but thought that I would weigh into the debate. I lived in Ferntree Gully for 5 years (84-89), and then travelled through both Upper Ferntree Gully and Ferntree Gully stations for another 10-15 years. As far as I can remember, the signs at the station have always used the one word version. Yeah, they changed colour from the old style signs to the current Metlink signs, but they always said "Ferntree", and not "Fern Tree".
My opinion is that the maps should reflect what is actually there, and should not be using the designated "official" name from an old government publication. I did conduct a brief Google search also, and came across some old Acts of Parliament regarding the construction, and subsequent widening and electrification, of the stretch from "Fern Tree Gully" to "Gembrook". However, as these date back to 1948 at their most recent, and the name is not currently being used in this way, I think that this does nothing to add weight to the argument that the two word version of the names should be used. Lastly, the original request was for advice on how to handle the situation with the other OSM user. AFAIK the other user may not subscribe to this list, so while having this debate here is good, the other user may not even be aware of it. Is there a way to handle 'disputes' such as this one so that once a consensus is reached after a reasonable discussion, an adjustment to the name can be made, without it being reverted? My $0.02. > name:Furntree Gully; Furn tree Gully. > Ie, name it both ways, with the popular spelling first. > Just a suggestion, I personally think it should be "Furntree Gully". > > > > > > On 3 February 2011 21:29, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Alex Lum <sierra.os...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> In any case, we should be mapping what's "on-the-ground" anyway, i.e. >>> the station signage (unless this signage is contradictory in which case >>> it may be required to use official records). >> >> I thought the policy wherever it's written was using whatever the >> locals think it is. I'm wary of placing too much trust in signage, >> because with bike paths in particular, that approach gets you nowhere >> fast. But if there's an official operator (which there is), whatever >> their website says sounds like a good start. >> >> We definitely shouldn't have a situation where one person swears blind >> that "the real name" of something is xxx even though common sense >> dictates that it's yyy. >> >> Steve >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > -- John Berkers _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
