At 2012-02-17 13:41, TC Haddad wrote:
Can someone explain the original point of name expansion? Is it so that
devices that give audio directions using text-to-speech can read fluently?
Or was it really all about "saving time"?
Because there are other use cases where expanded names are not desirable,
particularly in cartography. When map or screen real estate is minimal,
expanded names can be downright detrimental to utility.
+1, though there is significant argument on both sides, and the
non-abbreviators have so far managed to keep the status quo.
For example: in Portland all the expanded quadrant names (NE,NW, SE, SW)
really detract from the experience of using osm extracts on handheld GPS.
All the streets in an area of interest end up looking like they have the
same name because all that fits on the street segments is the first word
of the expanded quadrant label and not the "real" part of the name. So
"NE Tillamook" and "NE Hancock" both just label as "Northeast"... and
that is separate from the issue that people don't actually write
addresses here as "Northeast Tillamook".
Theoretically, the consumers of the data (renderers, etc.) are supposed to
do the work of re-abbreviating where necessary, but that seems to have
gotten lost in the design of some/most of them.
--
Alan Mintz <alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net>
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
