Fwd: HOT for Cyclone Yasi

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fwd: HOT for Cyclone Yasi

JohnSmitty
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mikel Maron <[hidden email]>
Date: 3 February 2011 06:44
Subject: HOT for Cyclone Yasi
To: John Smith <[hidden email]>, Shoaib Burq
<[hidden email]>, Kashif Rasul <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]


Are you all, or others in the Australian community, wanting to
coordinate response to Cyclone Yasi? What are the mapping needs if
any?
-Mikel

== Mikel Maron ==
+254(0)724899738 @mikel s:mikelmaron
http://mapkibera.org/
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Haiti

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Liz
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: HOT for Cyclone Yasi

Liz
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 12:52:28 +1000
John Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Are you all, or others in the Australian community, wanting to
> coordinate response to Cyclone Yasi? What are the mapping needs if
> any?
> -Mikel

I don't think anyone has a clue at present
It will remain very cloudy for some days yet, so no possibility of
satellite imaging to check for damaged buildings etc

From my household one will be leaving tomorrow for emergency work and
be away for the week coming. Not likely to have contact with the top of
the emergency hierarchy during this period, just work on the ground.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: HOT for Cyclone Yasi

JohnSmitty
I forwarded this to Mikel, but can anyone else reply please CC the
following addresses:

Mikel Maron <[hidden email]>, Shoaib Burq
<[hidden email]>, Kashif Rasul <[hidden email]>,
[hidden email]

On 3 February 2011 18:38, Elizabeth Dodd <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 12:52:28 +1000
> John Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Are you all, or others in the Australian community, wanting to
>> coordinate response to Cyclone Yasi? What are the mapping needs if
>> any?
>> -Mikel
>
> I don't think anyone has a clue at present
> It will remain very cloudy for some days yet, so no possibility of
> satellite imaging to check for damaged buildings etc
>
> From my household one will be leaving tomorrow for emergency work and
> be away for the week coming. Not likely to have contact with the top of
> the emergency hierarchy during this period, just work on the ground.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Railway Station Naming Dispute

Luke W. (lakeyboy)
Doesn't happen too often on OSM, unlike Wikipedia, but i've found myself in an edit war with another user and I would like some opinions.

There are two railway stations in outer eastern Melbourne, Ferntree Gully and Upper Ferntree Gully. These stations have in the past been named Fern Tree Gully and Upper Fern Tree Gully.

I've been changing the names for a while now to the one word version because it's the current public spelling of the station. It's used in newspapers, the Metlink (official melbourne public transport) website, virtually any signage or publication uses the one word version. I feel that this version is warranted on OSM in terms of it being what the station is publicly know as at this point in time, and to help with searching (and any future implementation of OSM data for journey planning)

Another user has been changing the station names to the two word version. Their explanation is that because the stations were officially named in the two word fashion a while back. In recent times, the name changed back to the one word version in all known publications and signage, but was not officially changed back. (http://www.vicsig.net/infrastructure/location/Ferntree-Gully and http://www.vicsig.net/infrastructure/location/Upper-Ferntree-Gully)

So any opinions as to how I should go about this?

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Railway Station Naming Dispute

Steve Bennett-3
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Luke Woolley <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Their explanation is that because the stations were officially named in the
> two word fashion a while back. In recent times, the name changed back to the
> one word version in all known publications and signage, but was not
> officially changed back.

I don't understand - the "name changed" but "was not officially
changed back"? Afaik, it's Ferntree Gully, and that's how it should be
in OSM. Sounds like the other party is getting a bit hung up on some
particular source they have designated canonical...although we have no
such policy.

Fwiw, I live near Glenhuntly Station - so named despite the spelling
of Glen Huntly (suburb) and Glen Huntly Rd.

Steve

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Railway Station Naming Dispute

Alex Lum
In reply to this post by Luke W. (lakeyboy)
I had a look at the Vicnames database which is about as official as it gets regarding registered geographic names in Victoria. According to Vicnames both stations were registered on 2 May 1966 as the one-word versions: Ferntree Gully and Upper Ferntree Gully.

While I am loath to dispute the accuracy of a rail enthusiast web page which tend to be pretty thorough, I would place more faith in the official government name registry than a rail web page which says the name was changed in the 1970s, especially given the large amount of material that concurs with the "Ferntree" version.

In any case, we should be mapping what's "on-the-ground" anyway, i.e. the station signage (unless this signage is contradictory in which case it may be required to use official records).

Alex.

> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 21:22:06 +1100
> From: Luke Woolley <[hidden email]>
> To: OSM Australian Talk List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [talk-au] Railway Station Naming Dispute
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Doesn't happen too often on OSM, unlike Wikipedia, but i've found myself in an edit war with another user and I would like some opinions.
>
> There are two railway stations in outer eastern Melbourne, Ferntree Gully and Upper Ferntree Gully. These stations have in the past been named Fern Tree Gully and Upper Fern Tree Gully.
>
> I've been changing the names for a while now to the one word version because it's the current public spelling of the station. It's used in newspapers, the Metlink (official melbourne public transport) website, virtually any signage or publication uses the one word version. I feel that this version is warranted on OSM in terms of it being what the station is publicly know as at this point in time, and to help with searching (and any future implementation of OSM data for journey planning)
>
> Another user has been changing the station names to the two word version. Their explanation is that because the stations were officially named in the two word fashion a while back. In recent times, the name changed back to the one word version in all known publications and signage, but was not officially changed back. (http://www.vicsig.net/infrastructure/location/Ferntree-Gully and http://www.vicsig.net/infrastructure/location/Upper-Ferntree-Gully)
>
> So any opinions as to how I should go about this?

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Railway Station Naming Dispute

Steve Bennett-3
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Alex Lum <[hidden email]> wrote:
> In any case, we should be mapping what's "on-the-ground" anyway, i.e. the station signage (unless this signage is contradictory in which case it may be required to use official records).

I thought the policy – wherever it's written – was using whatever the
locals think it is. I'm wary of placing too much trust in signage,
because with bike paths in particular, that approach gets you nowhere
fast. But if there's an official operator (which there is), whatever
their website says sounds like a good start.

We definitely shouldn't have a situation where one person swears blind
that "the real name" of something is xxx even though common sense
dictates that it's yyy.

Steve

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Railway Station Naming Dispute

Andrew Laughton-2
name:Furntree Gully; Furn tree Gully.
Ie, name it both ways, with the popular spelling first.
Just a suggestion, I personally think it should be "Furntree Gully".





On 3 February 2011 21:29, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Alex Lum <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> In any case, we should be mapping what's "on-the-ground" anyway, i.e. the station signage (unless this signage is contradictory in which case it may be required to use official records).
>
> I thought the policy – wherever it's written – was using whatever the
> locals think it is. I'm wary of placing too much trust in signage,
> because with bike paths in particular, that approach gets you nowhere
> fast. But if there's an official operator (which there is), whatever
> their website says sounds like a good start.
>
> We definitely shouldn't have a situation where one person swears blind
> that "the real name" of something is xxx even though common sense
> dictates that it's yyy.
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Railway Station Naming Dispute

Richard Weait
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-3
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Alex Lum <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> In any case, we should be mapping what's "on-the-ground" anyway, i.e. the station signage (unless this signage is contradictory in which case it may be required to use official records).
>
> I thought the policy – wherever it's written – was using whatever the
> locals think it is. I'm wary of placing too much trust in signage,
> because with bike paths in particular, that approach gets you nowhere
> fast. But if there's an official operator (which there is), whatever
> their website says sounds like a good start.
>
> We definitely shouldn't have a situation where one person swears blind
> that "the real name" of something is xxx even though common sense
> dictates that it's yyy.

There is merit in both "on the ground" and "local usage" but the
details matter.  I wonder if local mappers could come to an agreement
by using both name and old_name?  There may not be a general answer
beyond, "what's the best you can collectively agree to?"

As an example, I have a local bit of motorway that appears to be "just
more of highway 8."  It is, in fact, a high speed bypass of highway 8
which still exists as a local road.  Wikipedia suggests that the
bypass is officially highway 7187, an un-sign-posted, internal
reference number for the highway department.  It would be correct, in
some ways to use ref=7187, as this is the internal reference number.
It would be correct in other ways to use ref=8 based on local, common
usage.  In the end, the local mappers agreed to leave this section of
motorway with no ref=, since this section has no posted highway number
"reassurance markers".

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4001108/history
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.40796&lon=-80.39076&zoom=15&layers=M

Best regards,
Richard

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Railway Station Naming Dispute

John Berkers
In reply to this post by Andrew Laughton-2
I'm relatively new to OSM, but thought that I would weigh into the debate.

I lived in Ferntree Gully for 5 years (84-89), and then travelled through
both Upper Ferntree Gully and Ferntree Gully stations for another 10-15
years.  As far as I can remember, the signs at the station have always
used the one word version.  Yeah, they changed colour from the old style
signs to the current Metlink signs, but they always said "Ferntree", and
not "Fern Tree".

My opinion is that the maps should reflect what is actually there, and
should not be using the designated "official" name from an old government
publication.

I did conduct a brief Google search also, and came across some old Acts of
Parliament regarding the construction, and subsequent widening and
electrification, of the stretch from "Fern Tree Gully" to "Gembrook".
However, as these date back to 1948 at their most recent, and the name is
not currently being used in this way, I think that this does nothing to
add weight to the argument that the two word version of the names should
be used.

Lastly, the original request was for advice on how to handle the situation
with the other OSM user.  AFAIK the other user may not subscribe to this
list, so while having this debate here is good, the other user may not
even be aware of it.  Is there a way to handle 'disputes' such as this one
so that once a consensus is reached after a reasonable discussion, an
adjustment to the name can be made, without it being reverted?

My $0.02.

> name:Furntree Gully; Furn tree Gully.
> Ie, name it both ways, with the popular spelling first.
> Just a suggestion, I personally think it should be "Furntree Gully".
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3 February 2011 21:29, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Alex Lum <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>> In any case, we should be mapping what's "on-the-ground" anyway, i.e.
>>> the station signage (unless this signage is contradictory in which case
>>> it may be required to use official records).
>>
>> I thought the policy – wherever it's written – was using whatever the
>> locals think it is. I'm wary of placing too much trust in signage,
>> because with bike paths in particular, that approach gets you nowhere
>> fast. But if there's an official operator (which there is), whatever
>> their website says sounds like a good start.
>>
>> We definitely shouldn't have a situation where one person swears blind
>> that "the real name" of something is xxx even though common sense
>> dictates that it's yyy.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


--
John Berkers


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Railway Station Naming Dispute

Richard Weait
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:39 PM, John Berkers <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm relatively new to OSM, but thought that I would weigh into the debate.

Hi John,

Welcome!  And great local background.  Thank you.

> Lastly, the original request was for advice on how to handle the situation
> with the other OSM user.  AFAIK the other user may not subscribe to this
> list, so while having this debate here is good, the other user may not
> even be aware of it.  Is there a way to handle 'disputes' such as this one
> so that once a consensus is reached after a reasonable discussion, an
> adjustment to the name can be made, without it being reverted?

Conflict resolution differs according to the participants, of course.
Some suggestions are provided on the wiki.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Railway Station Naming Dispute

Stephen Hope
In reply to this post by Luke W. (lakeyboy)
I'd keep both names - name=  and alt_name= ( or old_name=).  This is
better for lookup purposes, as either version would then find this
station.  And it's not wrong, as it seems the other version was
correct at one time.

Whether that would be acceptable to the other editor is another problem.

Stephen

On 3 February 2011 20:22, Luke Woolley <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Doesn't happen too often on OSM, unlike Wikipedia, but i've found myself in
> an edit war with another user and I would like some opinions.
> There are two railway stations in outer eastern Melbourne, Ferntree Gully
> and Upper Ferntree Gully. These stations have in the past been named Fern
> Tree Gully and Upper Fern Tree Gully.
> I've been changing the names for a while now to the one word version because
> it's the current public spelling of the station. It's used in newspapers,
> the Metlink (official melbourne public transport) website, virtually any
> signage or publication uses the one word version. I feel that this version
> is warranted on OSM in terms of it being what the station is publicly know
> as at this point in time, and to help with searching (and any future
> implementation of OSM data for journey planning)
> Another user has been changing the station names to the two word version.
> Their explanation is that because the stations were officially named in the
> two word fashion a while back. In recent times, the name changed back to the
> one word version in all known publications and signage, but was not
> officially changed back.
> (http://www.vicsig.net/infrastructure/location/Ferntree-Gully and http://www.vicsig.net/infrastructure/location/Upper-Ferntree-Gully)
> So any opinions as to how I should go about this?
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fwd: Railway Station Naming Dispute

Luke W. (lakeyboy)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Luke Woolley <[hidden email]>
Date: 4 February 2011 13:02
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Railway Station Naming Dispute
To: Stephen Hope <[hidden email]>


I can tell you now, the other editor has a problem with this. A couple
of times I've done name=Ferntree Gully and alt_name=Fern Tree Gully
but they have been quickly reverted to their version. I'm going to
change it again to the one word versions, PM the other editor, i'll
give him the link to this discussion, and then i'll await their reply
and go from there. I'll also mention about how generally 'what's on
the ground' gets preference over other names if they are different.
Whether they want to sign up to the mailing list to participate in
this discussion is also something i'll mention.

On 4 February 2011 12:08, Stephen Hope <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'd keep both names - name=  and alt_name= ( or old_name=).  This is
> better for lookup purposes, as either version would then find this
> station.  And it's not wrong, as it seems the other version was
> correct at one time.
>
> Whether that would be acceptable to the other editor is another problem.
>
> Stephen
>
> On 3 February 2011 20:22, Luke Woolley <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Doesn't happen too often on OSM, unlike Wikipedia, but i've found myself in
>> an edit war with another user and I would like some opinions.
>> There are two railway stations in outer eastern Melbourne, Ferntree Gully
>> and Upper Ferntree Gully. These stations have in the past been named Fern
>> Tree Gully and Upper Fern Tree Gully.
>> I've been changing the names for a while now to the one word version because
>> it's the current public spelling of the station. It's used in newspapers,
>> the Metlink (official melbourne public transport) website, virtually any
>> signage or publication uses the one word version. I feel that this version
>> is warranted on OSM in terms of it being what the station is publicly know
>> as at this point in time, and to help with searching (and any future
>> implementation of OSM data for journey planning)
>> Another user has been changing the station names to the two word version.
>> Their explanation is that because the stations were officially named in the
>> two word fashion a while back. In recent times, the name changed back to the
>> one word version in all known publications and signage, but was not
>> officially changed back.
>> (http://www.vicsig.net/infrastructure/location/Ferntree-Gully and http://www.vicsig.net/infrastructure/location/Upper-Ferntree-Gully)
>> So any opinions as to how I should go about this?
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>>
>

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au