On Wednesday 14 July 2010, Ed Avis wrote: > Thanks for getting the OS Locator tiles updating again. Could I make a > feature > request? > > Often when OS and OSM disagree I will tag this in the OSM database with a note > such as > > FIXME=Check name - OSM has Marefield Gardens, OS has Maresfield Gardens > > Usually I will also delete the name= tag, so that the street shows up in > noname > checks to be resurveyed (and because the correct name is unknown). > > It would be useful for these already-looked-at cases to be excluded from the > Locator check, since they are being flagged separately by noname checks. I > know > this was briefly discussed earlier on the list. > > We could spend all month discussing a suitably elaborate tagging scheme of > fixme:name:OS_OpenData_Locator:resurvey=yes;osm_value=x;os_value=y. However, > I propose not inventing any new tagging for this. Rather, look to see if the > OS name is mentioned as a substring in one of the tag values. That would show > that somebody at least is aware of it, and would catch various tagging schemes > including the FIXME one I've been using.
I really think this is exactly the sort of thing that does not belong in the OSM database, which is why I am working on a separate but connected database of manually overridable match states. Development isn't as fast as I'd like it to be due to work constraints and my home processing power being limited (testing can take a while). robert. _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
