On 7/4/16 11:43, Ian Sergeant wrote:
Hi, What are you actually trying to achieve here? As I understand, the purpose of the original GNB update was slot in GNB names where OSM didn't already have coverage. If there is already a town/village/suburb/locality in OSM, and it is already well located, then there is no issue that I can see. What type of changes in the GNB have happened that you want to reflect in OSM?
New place names get created, old names get discontinued, new variants of names get registered, spelling of place names are changed, dual names are registered, place names that for some reason have never made it to OSM are missing, alternative names that weren't included in the initial import should be included.
I'm really not sure how putting a locality node bang on top of a town node is going to be anything put confusing. I don't think it communicates any information at all.
Did you look at the examples? I meant the opposite of that; there should only be one OSM place node even if that means having the LOCALITY or SUBURB entry significantly offset from the GNB lat/lon.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
