You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In cases where OpenStreetMap is our geospatial source (which you can see where location:origin IS "osm"), the field field location:name is synced through the Overpass API to the OSM object name. In some cases, objects gulped in from this route will:
not have a name, and Overpass with return a none value; or,
have a name that we don't want to use, because our research shows it's wrong.
In both cases, we can override the value in location:name using the first part of the "humane id" format. For example:
location:humane_id:admin
location:name
Location McLocation (osm, point) that uuid
[null value / none value]
Namey McName Face (osm, poly) this uuid
Wrong Name We Don't Like
How does the importer currently deal with situations like these where there is a deliberate internal inconsistency?
I'm considering adding a field to make the location names we substitute in these cases an explicit value, but wanted to know what our current situation is.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
tlongers
changed the title
Quesiton about importer behaviour where Blank values in location:name
Quesiton about importer behaviour where Blank values in location:name are blank
Oct 14, 2021
tlongers
changed the title
Quesiton about importer behaviour where Blank values in location:name are blank
Question about importer behaviour where Blank values in location:name are blank
Oct 14, 2021
In cases where OpenStreetMap is our geospatial source (which you can see where
location:origin
IS "osm"), the field fieldlocation:name
is synced through the Overpass API to the OSM object name. In some cases, objects gulped in from this route will:none
value; or,In both cases, we can override the value in
location:name
using the first part of the "humane id" format. For example:How does the importer currently deal with situations like these where there is a deliberate internal inconsistency?
I'm considering adding a field to make the location names we substitute in these cases an explicit value, but wanted to know what our current situation is.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: