> i believe "city of" is redundant as its a classification vs a name. > Would we say "village of maniwaki"? nope.
What "we say" and what "OSM tags" can vary slightly. Although with names, "what we say" is a great place to start and very largely correct. This is a topic which can explode quickly, smearing into many linguistic zones. We define an official_name value at https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:name and short_name and loc_name can get in on the act in some cases. There are places and circumstances where preceding a city's name with "City of" is "a very correct answer." So, sort that out, if we would, please. We (California) have a city which nearly everybody in all circumstances calls Ventura which is "officially" San Buenaventura. Stuff like this happens. Then, there might be a "linguistic register" (like in a legal pleading) where "The City of San Buenaventura" is "just what the doctor ordered" acceptably correct. It appears that "City of Toronto" being roughly 91% of a six-figure-strong consensus is a clear winner. However, Kevin Farrugia says something different. We listen, we consider, we allow consensus to emerge and the bold pull triggers. By that I mean "clean up what we now agree needs correcting." OSM is so delightfully human and organic. I'm so glad we so widely speak amongst ourselves. SteveA _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talkemail@example.com https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca