I have also made name decisions based on the number of street name signs (an example from the other side of Leeds): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4325553/history/11
Regards, *Paul* On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 at 10:37, Tom Crocker <[email protected]> wrote: > Sounds good to me. I think either order of name/alt_name would be fine but > seems reasonable to go with OS. In a similar case I based it on the number > of street signs (3 vs 1) and added this info to source:name > https://www.osm.org/way/184572683 > > Tom Crocker > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2025, 10:21 Mark Goodge, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The naming of streets, as TS Eliot might have said had OpenStreetmap >> been around in his day, is a difficult matter. Anyway, there's one >> locally that's just sparked a discussion on social media, and thought >> I'd ask for comments here before making any changes. >> >> The street in question is Way 25574182, currently labelled as "Brick >> Kiln Street": >> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25574182 >> >> This isn't necessarily wrong, and is what appears in the NSG (following >> the local authority's "no punctuation" rule). The PAF and Addressbase >> also use that version for properties on the street. However, >> historically, the name has been hyphenated as "Brick-Kiln Street", and >> is still shown as such on one of the street nameplates: >> >> https://maps.app.goo.gl/xAAKYPhb6WBJrwKD6 >> >> But, on the other hand, it also has the unhyphenated version on the >> other side of the street: >> >> https://maps.app.goo.gl/FB2VU7dXEcpAYKJUA >> >> The NSG, though, isn't open data, and therefore can't be used as a >> source for OSM. What can be used as a source is OS OpenMap and >> OpenNames, both of which use the hyphenated version - see >> https://os.openstreetmap.org (you'll need to zoom in because the site >> doesn't support a direct link). Google Maps and Bing Maps (possibly >> following OpenNames) also use the hyphenated version, as do Michelin and >> Apple Maps. >> >> So, which version should be used in OSM? >> >> On the one hand, the official, canonical version isn't hyphenated. But >> the official, canonical version isn't available as open data. And we do >> have a reliable, widely used open data source which uses the hyphenated >> version. On-the-ground sources give both options. Local usage is >> probably split, but I obviously don't have any hard data showing which >> is more often preferred. Although none of the other mapping services >> I've mentioned are open data, there does seem to be a consensus in the >> mapping community to use the hyphenated version. >> >> My gut feeling, therefore, is that OSM should use the hyphenated version >> in the name tag, with the unhyphenated version as an alt_name, and >> possibly with a note explaining the potential ambiguity. >> >> What do the rest of you think? >> >> Mark >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
