I'd keep both names - name= and alt_name= ( or old_name=). This is better for lookup purposes, as either version would then find this station. And it's not wrong, as it seems the other version was correct at one time.
Whether that would be acceptable to the other editor is another problem. Stephen On 3 February 2011 20:22, Luke Woolley <[email protected]> wrote: > Doesn't happen too often on OSM, unlike Wikipedia, but i've found myself in > an edit war with another user and I would like some opinions. > There are two railway stations in outer eastern Melbourne, Ferntree Gully > and Upper Ferntree Gully. These stations have in the past been named Fern > Tree Gully and Upper Fern Tree Gully. > I've been changing the names for a while now to the one word version because > it's the current public spelling of the station. It's used in newspapers, > the Metlink (official melbourne public transport) website, virtually any > signage or publication uses the one word version. I feel that this version > is warranted on OSM in terms of it being what the station is publicly know > as at this point in time, and to help with searching (and any future > implementation of OSM data for journey planning) > Another user has been changing the station names to the two word version. > Their explanation is that because the stations were officially named in the > two word fashion a while back. In recent times, the name changed back to the > one word version in all known publications and signage, but was not > officially changed back. > (http://www.vicsig.net/infrastructure/location/Ferntree-Gully and http://www.vicsig.net/infrastructure/location/Upper-Ferntree-Gully) > So any opinions as to how I should go about this? > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
