Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
Am 05.06.2009 um 03:59 schrieb Nop: Actually, it is sort of pointless if we keep discussing this among ourselves. I would like to invite a few other people to voice their opinions. Hi, after a quick look at the Wikipage Tag:historic=castle I would prefer using the English terms for tagging, although it is a subtag. Only if several English native-speaker would confirm, that castle_type=defensive does not clearly define a Burg I would use the local terms. Hth, Ingo -- Ingo Lantschner 1060 Vienna-Austria Mobil +43-664-143 84 18 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
Hi! There is no exact _translation_. But it is easily possible do _define_ a tag (in english) that represents the correct meaning in the local context. [..] I am not quite shure if this is pointless or not. I mean, we are actually lacking an english term to distinguish between some types of castles and you suggest to select a random english word (that more or less matches what you want to express) to define it? Help me: Why don't we use the established scientific term? I think we could do that. Even if this science-lingo word looks exactly like the evil german word 'burg'. /Andreas ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
I am new to this forum/thread but with the ability to translate the map into local languages it would make sense for all tags to be in English then they can be translated into the local language. So for example you go on holiday to France it would make sense for you to read the map in you language rather than French. English is often considered a bastard language as we have picked up words from other counties and turned them into our own but we need to keep the amount of different tags to a minimum due to it becoming a bigger task to do anything in the future. Use the translation tools. That is my opinion. Jack Stringer ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
What's being discussed here is the token used internally to OSM to say this is *this* kind of thing, rather than something that's rendered as a label on the map. There's an established convention for having multiple language versions of a place's name. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name Sorry my fault. I was trying to say that if I wanted to visit European castle_type=defensive I could but if they are referred to as a berg in Germany, a blah in France and as summat else in another country I will soon end up with a very messy and confusing list. Because if I don't know the local descriptive type name I will not be able to find it. Even though its a more of a internal tag its still a tag that could be used in the future by others to create a map of defensive castles. Jack ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
2009/6/5 Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de: In my opinion it is just the same for castles. You see the tag catle_type=defensive and you know that it is a Burg in Germany and a keep in Britain. There is no need to use Burg, hrad, linna, Chateau, zamek etc. with roughly the same meaning. well, the confusion just begins to start ;-) A keep is not corrispondent to a burg, it is corispondent to a donjon, maybe to a bergfried in German. A keep is part of a castle, not the whole. If you continue to say, that burg and chateau (=schloss) has roughly the same meaning, you're still proofing that you should stick to historic=castle and let others do the castle_type. Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
I am not quite shure if this is pointless or not. I mean, we are actually lacking an english term to distinguish between some types of castles and you suggest to select a random english word (that more or less matches what you want to express) to define it? Help me: Why don't we use the established scientific term? I think we could do that. Even if this science-lingo word looks exactly like the evil german word 'burg'. Burg: a fortress or a walled town (according to my 1990 vintage Chambers English Dictionary). So I'd say the English for burg is burg, and yes this is pointless. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
well, the confusion just begins to start ;-) A keep is not corrispondent to a burg, it is corispondent to a donjon, maybe to a bergfried in German. A keep is part of a castle, not the whole. If you continue to say, that burg and chateau (=schloss) has roughly the same meaning, you're still proofing that you should stick to historic=castle and let others do the castle_type. How do historians/archaeologists log castles/ruins, what criteria are they working from. ie its on a hill so its a hill fort, its got a moat so its a bling blah. From a quick google I can figgure a berg is a castle on a hill. Why make up a new system if one already exists. Jack ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/6/5 Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk: Burg: a fortress or a walled town (according to my 1990 vintage Chambers English Dictionary). So I'd say the English for burg is burg, and yes this is pointless. thanks a lot. In old-English you could also say burh. and most likely in Old German too. damn but Tolkien was a fine philologist! -- http://short.ie/savenenaghhospital/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
Hi! I am not quite shure if this is pointless or not. I mean, we are actually lacking an english term to distinguish between some types of castles and you suggest to select a random english word (that more or less matches what you want to express) to define it? Help me: Why don't we use the established scientific term? I think we could do that. Even if this science-lingo word looks exactly like the evil german word 'burg'. I suggest to define a _descriptive_ English term for a certain classification of building - just like it is done for all major topics. It is highway=motorway, not highway=Autobahn which would be exact, it is highway=secondary and not highway=Kreisstrasse, even though there are is no no primary/secondary designation system in Germany. The tags describe a class of objects and the exact meaning is derived within local context. You may construct some meaning for Burg, but according to the tagging scheme in France the same thing needs to be tagged a chateaux fort. The word castle may be ambiguous, but I have seen castles with defense works in England and I have seen castles with purely residential character. So it makes sense to have a tag that describes those classes in any country. When we come to fortress, this is a term that matches very well in all countries, so why call it a Festung in Germany, a fortress in England and something else in France? And I can't see any way a weird combination of foreign terms like Burg;Schloss should be better than a descriptive term of the actual meaning. bye Nop -- GMX FreeDSL mit DSL 6.000 Flatrate und Telefonanschluss nur 17,95 Euro/mtl.! http://dslspecial.gmx.de/freedsl-aktionspreis/?ac=OM.AD.PD003K11308T4569a ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: thanks a lot. In old-English you could also say burh. I live in Charl_bury_ and spend a lot of time in _Bur_ton. Shaun, however, comes from Edin_borough_, which the French, funnily enough, know as Edin_bourg_. They're all the same root. I'm not sure that the existence of one of them in some dictionary or other, much though I like Chambers, really proves the point. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Castles-and-Palaces-tp23874066p23888389.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
Hi! In my opinion it is just the same for castles. You see the tag catle_type=defensive and you know that it is a Burg in Germany and a keep in Britain. There is no need to use Burg, hrad, linna, Chateau, zamek etc. with roughly the same meaning. well, the confusion just begins to start ;-) A keep is not corrispondent to a burg, it is corispondent to a donjon, maybe to a bergfried in German. A keep is part of a castle, not the whole. If you continue to say, that burg and chateau (=schloss) has roughly the same meaning, you're still proofing that you should stick to historic=castle and let others do the castle_type. Two terms were not well placed as I was writing from memory. But the use of the term keep is irrelevant for the discussion as it does not appear in the proposed tagging. Corrected sentence from above: There is no need to use Burg, hrad, linna, Chateau fort, zamek etc. with roughly the same meaning when you can describe all of them adequeately as a castle with defensive character. bye Nop -- GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
Hi! Burg: a fortress or a walled town (according to my 1990 vintage Chambers English Dictionary). So I'd say the English for burg is burg, and yes this is pointless. Actually, this is a false friend. A Burg is a considerably smaller fortification than a fortress (Festung in German) and in modern language it is never used for a walled town. This shows that you have been mislead by the use of German terms and are rather illustrating my point. Yet again, I suggest that general, descriptive Tags and a definition in the wiki can do better. bye Nop -- GMX FreeDSL mit DSL 6.000 Flatrate und Telefonanschluss nur 17,95 Euro/mtl.! http://dslspecial.gmx.de/freedsl-aktionspreis/?ac=OM.AD.PD003K11308T4569a ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
2009/6/5 ekkeh...@gmx.de: you're still proofing that you should stick to historic=castle and let others do the castle_type. Two terms were not well placed as I was writing from memory. But the use of the term keep is irrelevant for the discussion as it does not appear in the proposed tagging. see above ;-) Corrected sentence from above: There is no need to use Burg, hrad, linna, Chateau fort, zamek etc. with roughly the same meaning when you can describe all of them adequeately as a castle with defensive character. that's why there is one single suggestion for them: castle_type=burg, which is an established term for defensive castles from the middleages (11th-16th century) that can be found throughout central europe and that follow a certain typology. This term is already in use and has 74 occurances in tagwatch. Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
2009/6/5 ekkeh...@gmx.de: Hi! Burg: a fortress or a walled town (according to my 1990 vintage Chambers English Dictionary). So I'd say the English for burg is burg, and yes this is pointless. Actually, this is a false friend. A Burg is a considerably smaller fortification than a fortress (Festung in German) and in modern language it is never used for a walled town. This shows that you have been mislead by the use of German terms and are rather illustrating my point. No, you are again proofing that you are not familiar with the meaning of burg not even in German. A walled town called burg in English would be a Stadtburg (burgartig befestigte Stadt) in German, and is perfectly corresponding (though not all walled towns are burgs, again depends on typology/construction date). Btw: the difference between Festung and Burg in German is the time of construction (and therefore typology, technique, etc.). In the middleages they were synonimous (Veste). Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
Hi! I was trying to say that if I wanted to visit European castle_type=defensive I could but if they are referred to as a berg in Germany, a blah in France and as summat else in another country I will soon end up with a very messy and confusing list. Because if I don't know the local descriptive type name I will not be able to find it. Even though its a more of a internal tag its still a tag that could be used in the future by others to create a map of defensive castles. I agree, this is exactly my point. bye Nop -- GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
Hi! Corrected sentence from above: There is no need to use Burg, hrad, linna, Chateau fort, zamek etc. with roughly the same meaning when you can describe all of them adequeately as a castle with defensive character. that's why there is one single suggestion for them: castle_type=burg, which is an established term for defensive castles from the middleages (11th-16th century) that can be found throughout central europe and that follow a certain typology. This term is already in use and has 74 occurances in tagwatch. And which is misleading for non-German speakers as just demonstrated on this list. :-) bye Nop -- GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
I wrote: Edin_borough_ which should of course be Edin_burgh_. Which is a bit further up the ECML from Peter_borough_. And so on. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Castles-and-Palaces-tp23874066p23890407.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
Hi! Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: No! A walled town called burg in English would be a Burg in German (and more specific a Stadtburg). There is nothing misleading. A fortress called burg in English would be a Burg in German. You can't pick one possible meaning in a 2 phrase--general-dictionary-definition to definitely proof something. A town is not the primary meaning of Burg. And if you go for all possible meanings - it means castle and is too general to be useful. :-) If otherwise, please give me an example of a city that is actually referred to as a Burg today (not with burg in its name, but designated as a Burg ). burg in it's name is a perfect proof. No. The name just indicates that the term used to have this meaning in the middle ages. I don't know a single example of a town referred to as Burg today and I am still waiting for you to proof your point. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
2009/6/5 Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de: No. The name just indicates that the term used to have this meaning in the middle ages. I don't know a single example of a town referred to as Burg today and I am still waiting for you to proof your point. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcassonne ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: 2009/6/5 Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de: No. The name just indicates that the term used to have this meaning in the middle ages. I don't know a single example of a town referred to as Burg today and I am still waiting for you to proof your point. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcassonne Thank you, a good example. The article distinguishes between the Burgstadt (the whole city) and the Burg (a seperate fortification inside the city). As you can see, the terms are used in different ways, Burg never referring to the whole city. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
Hello! On the Wiki-Page for the tag historic=castle [1], a tagging scheme for castles, palaces and fortifications has appeared. Unfortunately, discussion on that page has died down. As I believe that the topic requires quite some more attention and the values seem to have appeared without a proposal or vote, I'd like to address it again. My main criticism on the suggested values like castle_type=Burg for a fortified castle is breaking OSM convention and using local language values even though in my opinion a proper English value can be found for all of the mentioned objects. I took the liberty of adding such values. I disagree with the argumentat that such tags were not scientifically accurate enough. Most commonly used tags have a mild degree of abstraction. E.g. there are considerable differences between a German Autobahn and a British Motorway, but still it is not properly tagged as highway=Autobahn. I consider the use of such local language values harmful in an international project - and completely unnecessary in this case. bye Nop [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dcastle -- GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
2009/6/4 ekkeh...@gmx.de: Hello! On the Wiki-Page for the tag historic=castle [1], a tagging scheme for castles, palaces and fortifications has appeared. Unfortunately, discussion on that page has died down. As I believe that the topic requires quite some more attention and the values seem to have appeared without a proposal or vote, I'd like to address it again. My main criticism on the suggested values like castle_type=Burg for a fortified castle is breaking OSM convention and using local language values even though in my opinion a proper English value can be found for all of the mentioned objects. I took the liberty of adding such values. I disagree with the argumentat that such tags were not scientifically accurate enough. Most commonly used tags have a mild degree of abstraction. E.g. there are considerable differences between a German Autobahn and a British Motorway, but still it is not properly tagged as highway=Autobahn. I consider the use of such local language values harmful in an international project - and completely unnecessary in this case. there was some intensive discussion on this topic involving some archeologists as well. There are some scientific activists in Germany who like to contribute to OSM with their professional knowledge, who confirmed, that burg ist a specific term with no English equivalent (and says in professional context burg is used even in English conferences to refer to this type of building). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
Hi! Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: there was some intensive discussion on this topic involving some archeologists as well. There are some scientific activists in Germany who like to contribute to OSM with their professional knowledge, who confirmed, that burg ist a specific term with no English equivalent (and says in professional context burg is used even in English conferences to refer to this type of building). This may be true from an archeological point of view, but a tag does not have to be a scientifically exact term. Most common tags are not exact matches (e.g. motorway, secondary) or even need looking up in the wiki or a template before you can use them (tracktype=grade3). If we can make non-scientific tags work everywhere else why deviate for building types? bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
2009/6/4 Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de: This may be true from an archeological point of view, but a tag does not have to be a scientifically exact term. I don't see the point. It was proposed a tag for a sub-feature that occurs just in areas where English is not the native language, with an internationally recognised term. It is there (quite a long time) in the wiki. Why should it be changed? Most common tags are not exact matches (e.g. motorway, secondary) or even they are well defined and therefore used. Why should motorway not be an exact match? If we can make non-scientific tags work everywhere else why deviate for building types? to avoid confusion about certain building types. This is not even about the main tag (historic=castle) which everyone without special knowledge can apply to all big houses, you are complaining about a sub tag (castle_type). I really don't see the problem. I think by changing this you would destroy the work already done in this field for OSM. Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
Hi! Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: 2009/6/4 Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de: This may be true from an archeological point of view, but a tag does not have to be a scientifically exact term. I don't see the point. It was proposed a tag for a sub-feature that occurs just in areas where English is not the native language, with an internationally recognised term. It is there (quite a long time) in the wiki. Why should it be changed? This is not true. Outside of Germany, there are also differences between castles - and they are the same. The difference between a defensive castle, a palace and a fortress exists there, too, and it is also of interest for a map. By using Local language for the same thing in every country you just create confusion. It is easy to find tags that are in English and work in Germany, in Britain, in France etc. It is there (quite a long time) in the wiki. Why should it be changed? It was simply put into the wiki without a proposal or vote. Only a few people have joined the discussion, there have been several opposing opinions and alternate suggestions. Just nothing has happened. This is not an indication that this is well established but rather that it was sneaked into the wiki with very few people actually participating. Most common tags are not exact matches (e.g. motorway, secondary) or even they are well defined and therefore used. Why should motorway not be an exact match? So what keeps us from defining tags for castles just as well in English and using them? Why should motorway not be an exact match? If you look at roads with the same scientific level of precision, there are differences in measurements, markings, minimum speed, maximum speed, traffic rules etc. If we can make non-scientific tags work everywhere else why deviate for building types? to avoid confusion about certain building types. This is not even about the main tag (historic=castle) which everyone without special knowledge can apply to all big houses, you are complaining about a sub tag (castle_type). I really don't see the problem. Have you looked at the values? Do you really think a value of castle_type=Schloss;Burg is a good idea? This is supposed to be one unique value, not a sequence as everybody would assume. And the meaning is even incomprehensible to a German. I think by changing this you would destroy the work already done in this field for OSM. Not at all. As there is a 1:1 English replacement for every German term, it can be switched to alternate terms easily without any loss of information. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
2009/6/4 Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de: If you look at roads with the same scientific level of precision, there are differences in measurements, markings, minimum speed, maximum speed, traffic rules etc. Have you looked at the values? Do you really think a value of castle_type=Schloss;Burg is a good idea? well, it is clearly defined on the page you mentioned as a Burg that later was transformed into a Schloss and therefore has characteristics of both. It is clearly defined and IMHO much clearer than the castle_type=residential you suggest. Not at all. As there is a 1:1 English replacement for every German term, it Roman already told you at the time that there is no 1:1 English replacement. That's why he suggested the german terms. can be switched to alternate terms easily without any loss of information. but you do like russian and japanese terms, or why didn't you translate shiro and kremlin? You are complaining about people sneaking stuff into the wiki, but you are the one doing this: after quite a lot of time (and tagging, this is tagwatch for castle_type:Schloss (77), Burg (68), burg (6), Burg, Schloss (5), schloss (4), Herrenhaus (3), Wasserburg (2), chateau (1), citadelle (1), fort (1), kremlin (1) ), a nice wikipage with pictures, etc. the only effort you do is to add confusion by simply adding your own private favorite tags below the old ones. I ask you to remove them there at least until there is some more conclusion in this discussion. You could set up your own alternative castle_type-page, but simply putting them there is really not good style. Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces
Hi! Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: Roman already told you at the time that there is no 1:1 English replacement. That's why he suggested the german terms. There is no exact _translation_. But it is easily possible do _define_ a tag (in english) that represents the correct meaning in the local context. It is that simple: You see the tag highway=motorway and you interpret in a local context, so you know that in Britain it is a Motorway with a speed limit and in Germany it is an Autobahn with unlimited speed. But you use the same tag. In my opinion it is just the same for castles. You see the tag catle_type=defensive and you know that it is a Burg in Germany and a keep in Britain. There is no need to use Burg, hrad, linna, Chateau, zamek etc. with roughly the same meaning. but you do like russian and japanese terms, or why didn't you translate shiro and kremlin? Because kremlin is an English tag and thus universally usable. :-) Actually, according to your doctrin, it is wrong. Being a russian type, it would have to be tagged in Russian language terms. So the page is even inconsistent. You are complaining about people sneaking stuff into the wiki, but you are the one doing this: after quite a lot of time (and tagging, this is tagwatch for castle_type: Schloss (77), Burg (68), burg (6), Burg, Schloss (5), schloss (4), Herrenhaus (3), Wasserburg (2), chateau (1), citadelle (1), fort (1), kremlin (1) ), a nice wikipage with pictures, etc. the only effort you do is to add confusion by simply adding your own private favorite tags below the old ones. I ask you to remove them there at least until there is some more conclusion in this discussion. You could set up your own alternative castle_type-page, but simply putting them there is really not good style. Please check the edits, I have been adding more than that. I am just following the bad example set by the page. As I said: Never a proposal. If you check the edits, the tagging scheme was opposed by Malenki and myself in April and Ulfl enhanced the notice that it was never voted upon. I tried the discussion page, but this was ignored. Since this improper proposal has just hijacked the main tag's wiki page, showing that there actually is a simple - and IMHO better - alternative appears feasible. Actually, it is sort of pointless if we keep discussing this among ourselves. I would like to invite a few other people to voice their opinions. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
