> 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 

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.

Talk-ca mailing list

Reply via email to