I think that "refreshing" the Geographic Names Board (GNB) placenames would be unhelpful.
If you read the contributors page in the wiki, it is unclear that appropriate permission was ever obtained to use the GNB data. It seemed to me that the particular contributor was relying on a generalised permission for personal and non-commercial use but without specific permission for OSM to use the data. I contacted GNB during 2015, seeking to clarify and confirm permission but did not receive a final response. Subsequently, OSM was given specific permission to use to access specified data from LPI NSW. GNB is now part of LPI NSW and the GNB database did not form part of the data for which approval was given. So I remain uncertain that OSM has the necessary permission to use the GNB database. A further reservation relates to the inadequacies of the data. Many of the co-ordinates for locations and features are incorrect. The published GNB locations of some place names are actually across state borders. Most errors are small but still significant. The locations on the LPI NSW Base Map are far more accurate. Another reservation relates to the appropriateness of including all the place names in the OSM map. It is a bit like including old railways lines and stations that are long gone. The GNB database includes places that were once settlements but are now just memories. For example, GNB lists a locality called "Bogan" on the Gongolgon Tarcoon Road near the Bourke Shire/Brewarrina Shire boundary, (http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/113763363#map=17/-30.17587/146.49569) I drove along that road last year, looking for any sign of the place and there are no buildings, no signs, nothing at all to be seen locally - only an entry in the GNB database which had been added into OSM. I did not remove the place from OSM but I think I may have edited the tags and reduced it from a "hamlet" to a "locality" although I felt sorely tempted to delete the node as there really was nothing there. I have edited quite a number of GNB place names when undertaking other edits. I have relocated the nodes to the actual sites as shown on satellite imagery or LPI NSW Base Map and have altered the place tags where it seemed appropriate.(e.g replacing the "hamlet" tag when there are no residents anywhere in the area. Overall I prefer to use survey data and the approved LPI NSW data sources and would be disappointed if GNB data were to be "refreshed'. On Thu, Apr 7, 2016, at 11:43 AM, 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? > > 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. > > Ian. > > > > On 7 April 2016 at 11:30, Andrew Davidson <[email protected]> wrote: > > There was an import of NSW places from the GNB database done back in 2008 > > with a helpful wiki page ;-) > > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NSW_Geographic_Names_Import > > > > I'm proposing to review these to see what's changed in the last 8 years but > > I've run into a number of problems: > > > > 1. It would seem that the original import was not complete > > 2. The nswgnb tags have not survived well > > 3. The GNB has "helpfully" created entries for the address localities but > > these seem to have taken on the reference numbers for the original > > town/village/city. They've created new entries for the original entity but > > this means that the town/village/city now has a different reference number. > > 4. Sometimes the locality entry has the same location but at other times it > > can be separated by up to 5km. > > > > Initially I thought that the multiple GNB references could be entered with > > multiple values like this: > > > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3118349777 > > > > but this doesn't naturally tell you how the place:nswgnb and ref:nswgnb line > > up and it doesn't lend itself to adding the alt_names that are in the > > database. As an alternative I'd like to use this scheme*: > > > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/113135446 > > > > which requires swapping the namespace prefix around to make nswgnb the > > namespace. I think this makes it clearer how the GNB categories line up and > > can be extended for more names (There is at least one place in NSW with > > three different variant names). > > > > I'm also proposing to put the LOCALITY or SUBURB entry at the same place as > > the corresponding TOWN/VILLAGE/CITY etc entry (provided that it still falls > > inside the admin_level 10 boundary). > > > > Any views on these ideas? I think the most important thing is will this be > > useful for the next person who looks at this in 5 to 10 years from now? > > > > > > *Unusually the admin_level 10 boundary for this area is called Lake Tabourie > > and has a separate GNB entry: > > > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4103653600 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-au mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
