Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Former Name field #1288

Open
1ec5 opened this issue Jul 14, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Former Name field #1288

1ec5 opened this issue Jul 14, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@1ec5
Copy link
Contributor

1ec5 commented Jul 14, 2024

The old_name=* key is very commonly used in OSM. This issue tracks adding a Former Name field, as originally proposed in openstreetmap/iD#1554.

In theory at least, this key indicates a former name of something that is still observable, for example due to a ghost sign, or that locals still use to refer to the feature out of habit. In practice, it’s also quite common to shunt a name from name=* to old_name=* whenever the name changes, regardless of the circumstances. (I’m as guilty of history hoarding as anyone else. Despite my preference for moving these details to OpenHistoricalMap, sometimes it’s just a matter of pragmatism or triage.)

Due to the varied uses of this key, I left it out of #215, which was already bogged down by back-and-forth about more straightforward keys. If we add this field, we’d also have to be comfortable with the potential for local history buffs to enthusiastically fill in obscure historical details that will then be more difficult to move to OHM for licensing reasons.

@maro-21
Copy link

maro-21 commented Aug 30, 2024

I support.
If we have loc_name, nat_name, official_name, reg_name, short_name we should also have old_name which is used more often than these ones.

@tordans
Copy link
Collaborator

tordans commented Aug 31, 2024

I wonder…

  • is this a key that should be added globally, like in in Add some common name fields #215 or can we scope the usage a reasonable set of presets
  • is the OSM Wikidata item description and Wiki page clear on the usage that is described in this post? I did not research this myself, yet. Is the "observable" part a strong requirement? For "local name" it is not (right?).
  • what is the relation from old name to local name?

If we add this field, we’d also have to be comfortable with the potential for local history buffs to enthusiastically fill in obscure historical details that will then be more difficult to move to OHM for licensing reasons.

It would still be a "moreFields" field, so people still have to look for it and I always how the also research what they are doing in this scenario. So I am less concerned with this once the docs are good.

# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants