2009/9/17 Stephen Hope <[email protected]>: > And the difference between them is pretty easily explained. If you're > on a train, you know you've just pulled into a station, the only > question is which one, so the word station is redundant. If you are > outside the station, you may not know what the building in front of > you is, and you are normally going to be in the suburb with the same > name. Therefore the Waterloo part is fairly redundant, it is the > station part that is important.
I'd agree, the context is quite important. > So the question becomes - what do we want to display on the map? > Which situation is the map reader in? There is a railway line marked, > with some sort of station symbol, and a name. Can we assume the word > station is implied? Personally I'd label the station node as simply 'Waterloo' as that has the context of the line, and will likely have a station icon associated with it on the map, but label the building as 'Waterloo Station' as that's the name of the building as it'd be identified on the ground. Cheers, Dan > 2009/9/18 Pieren <[email protected]>: >> >> Mmm, not sure that's enough because the name may differ between the >> public entrance (your photo) or the one on the platform itself. If I >> look this: >> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/London_Waterloo_stn_signage.JPG >> >> it should be "name=London Waterloo"... >> >> Pieren >> > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- Dan Karran [email protected] www.dankarran.com _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
