[UK] City names

Image

Moderators: Unholy, Timbones

Re: [UK] City names

Postby zzyzxuk » Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:38 pm

My personal take on it would be that anything within the -postal county- of Greater Manchester, should be labelled as:

neighbourhood (Manc)

(or whatever the "commonly accepted" abbreviation would be for the county).

*edit* - I've just added "Manchester" to the list of counties (sorry about forgetting it - it wasn't on the list on Wikipedia where I got this from) - if there's a commonly accepted abbreviation, I'll change it.
zzyzxuk
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: [UK] City names

Postby zzyzxuk » Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:14 pm

Support / Shai

Still need an answer to my question - I've been told two different things from Waze technical support people as to how to do the city/county distinction. Was originally told to do it like this:

city (county)

and KrankyD has just told us something different:

city, county

Can you please check, because a lot of us have been using the first system when we were told to do that... or are you planning on running a script that will handle -either- system and convert it to the right fields?
zzyzxuk
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: [UK] City names

Postby zzyzxuk » Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:07 pm

Kranky,

Can I ask you to double-check what you've just told us? There's another post on the forum when one of the other technical support guys told us to put the county name in parenthesis/brackets, in the format: Brighton and Hove (East Sussex)... and there are already a fair number of place names in the UK which now are using brackets...

zzyzxuk
zzyzxuk
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: [UK] City names

Postby zzyzxuk » Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:48 am

Until we have the extra field for putting more information in, this issue probably won't be clearly resolved, and even then there will always be places where it's not obvious how to handle it.

If it's a small village in the middle of nowhere, it doesn't make sense to call it by the name of the nearest large city - especially if the villagers themselves don't refer to themselves by that city's name - so in the name of the city field, yes, I'd put the village name.

Don't forget, we've been asked to also start populating that line with county name, in brackets, to help us migrate the data when they -do- implement the other field, and to help distinguish between that village and other villages which might have the same name elsewhere in the UK (sometimes happens).
zzyzxuk
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: [UK] City names

Postby zzyzxuk » Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:59 pm

Feathers...

Not Wimbledon (London)? ;)
zzyzxuk
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: [UK] City names

Postby zzyzxuk » Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:39 pm

sketch wrote:My intuition is to suggest only using the county name for cities that share that name (and in the London scenario, of course), preventing clutter. However, ultimately I think your plan could work quite nicely, especially if the Waze guys decide to give UKers a seperate "County" field... (hint, hint! ;) ) That way the data could be automatically parsed and split into the two fields whenever they exist.


Agreed - the ideal solution would be a separate field for "County", in the same way as US users have a field for "State".

The Germans are almost certainly going to want a field for "Lander", and the French will want one for "Department".

Waze team - do you want to weigh in on this???
zzyzxuk
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: [UK] City names

Postby zzyzxuk » Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:37 pm

paulbo wrote:That sounds good to me.

The only bit I'm not clear on is, for example, Bromley. It's in Kent, but is also the 'London Borough of Bromley'


I'd vote for Bromley, Kent, as that's how the locals know it. Same for Surbiton, Surrey.

Finally, with the idea of asking Waze to do a search-n-replace, maybe it would be a good idea for us to get a list out of them of towns/cities, so that we - the locals - choose the new name, and provide that back to them. That would take ever more of the effort of them, and help ensure we get exactly what we want in there.


Agreed. Happy to coordinate that if we collectively decide to do this.

Oh, the country list - is that something definitive you've grabbed from somewhere?
Yeah - wikipedia, as definitive as that is.
zzyzxuk
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: [UK] City names

Postby zzyzxuk » Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:15 am

To further things along, I'll suggest the following list of counties to be used in the city field: Feel free to suggest changes - it's only a starting point in the discussion. Note I've also not done the Welsh or Scottish counties, as I thought the locals might know them better than me. <G>

Suggested English county names/abbreviations:
Beds
Berks
Bucks
Cambs
Cheshire
Cleveland
Cornwall
Co Durham
Cumbria
Derbyshire
Devon
Dorset
E Sussex
Essex
Glos
Hants
Herefordshire
Herts
IOW
Kent
Lancs
Leics
Lincs
London
Merseyside
Middx
Norfolk
N Yorks
Northants
Northd
Notts
Oxon
Rutland
Shrops
Somerset
S Yorks
Staffs
Suffolk
Surrey
Tyne & Wear
Warks
W Mids
W Sussex
W Yorks
Wilts
Worcs
zzyzxuk
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: [UK] City names

Postby zzyzxuk » Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:55 am

OK - I think I have a solution, but it will need both your input, and a little technical help from Waze.

If you all like it, I can ask the Waze guys if they'll help us with it - I think they're able to, and as it's a pretty big problem for us in the UK, it'll be worth their time to do it...

Here's what I propose:

Currently, we have three fields in the database that we use to identify a street, in this format:

Country: United Kingdom
City: London, United Kingdom
Street: Whitehall

Or, to use a more relevant example:

Country: United Kingdom
City: Washington, United Kingdom
Street: High Street

Now, the problem is that we all want to have an additional layer of place name. For example, there are TWO cities called Washington in the UK, one in W Sussex, the other in Tyne & Wear.

I propose that we convert to a system where we put more information in the 'City' field like so:

Country: United Kingdom
City: Washington, W Sussex
Street: High Street

or

Country: United Kingdom
City: Washington, Tyne and Wear
Street: High Street

This is very similar to how Waze has addressed this problem in the USA where (famously) there are a large number of cities called Springfield, for example. They include the "State" in their city name field. So, we will include "County" in our name field.

For this to work, we'll need to use a standardised list of counties (no historical counties pleaes!), and I also propose we use abbreviations such as CAMBS, etc.

This will solve the problem of how to do London too - we can use borough names, or other neighbourhood names, and still show that it's London by using London as the county name:

Country: United Kingdom
City: Stratford, London
Street: High Street

So, before we move on this, how many of you support this idea?

If there's some general agreement, we'd then need to agree a standard for entering county names.

Then finally, we'd need to ask Waze to do a "global search and replace", by providing them with a list of cities names that need globally changing, e.g., Surbiton, would need to become Surbiton, Surrey. I think if we did the grunt work for them of compliling a list of what needs to be replaced, they might be more willing to do this,... but I do think that this is practically essential to do.

It's how Garmin and Tomtom have done -their- address databases, IIRC, and in the UK is almost essential.

Tell me what you think.

zzyzx-uk
Area Manager - Greater London
zzyzxuk
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: [UK] City names

Postby zzyzxuk » Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:06 pm

This is a really tricky one, with several possible solutions - all with pros and cons.

I originally thought to show the borough as the "city name" - and initially started using "Kingston" for all street names, and not using the neighbourhood names like "New Malden" or "Tolworth". However, I started to think that most locals are going to think they live in "Tolworth" and use that when looking up street names rather than the borough name, which most of us don't really use that much.

However in some neighbourhoods, you can be even more granular. For example, you could say you lived in Islington - or you could break it up even further and say you lived at the Angel, or in "Stoke Newington" - both of which are in Islington. Again, when I used to live in Stoke Newington - I rarely said I lived in Islington.

Ideally I think we should try to follow the principle of letting locals define their city as they themselves call it, but people will have different ideas of what their neighbourhood should be called. This is especially true of the neighbourhoods where people identify their address more in terms of the closest tube station than the actual district name.

Taking the argument all the way to the extreme - if -any - part of London should be called "London" - you'd think it's the inner-core - and I doubt anyone's going to quibble about using "London" for roads in The City. But should we use "Soho" instead of "London"? "Mayfair"? "Westminster"?

As it's important to have some agreement/consensus I'll suggest the following possibilities, but I think we should wait to hear from more Londoners before setting one in concrete...

1.) We could use postcodes as the delineator - all N, NW, SW, SE and E postcodes are London. Downside: lots of neighbourhoods that you'd think would have their own identiers won't.

2.) We could use some sort of geographic delinerator - everything inside the inner ring is "London", or going even bigger, "ALL London boroughs are "London")

This still leaves open the question: how do we decide what to call the areas that AREN'T "London" that I alluded to at the start of this post...

You'll notice that I generally have been leaving the city field blank in hopes that a solution would become apparently later on, and I'd go back later and change it. A clear solution hasn't yet occurred to me though. :(

zzyzxuk
Area Manager
Greater London
zzyzxuk
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Next

Return to United Kingdom

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users