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
