Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Tod Fitch]

> On Mar 27, 2020, at 5:29 PM, Clifford Snow  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 5:23 PM Paul Allen  > wrote:
> 
> I can think of one US city square which has "square" in the name
> (not square shaped, though) that is rather well-known.  If you
> can't think of it the ball will drop eventually, at midnight on Dec 31st.
> 
> The University of Washington has "Red Square" tagged as a place=square 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/47.65612/-122.30974 
> 
> Madison, WI has a square tagged as a park. 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/415148381 
> 
> Atenas, CR has a square, as many Costa Rica cities, also tagged as a park. 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/9.97911/-84.37985 
> 
> 

Looks like Union Square in San Francisco is tagged as both leisure=park and 
place=square https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25278818




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

[Jeremiah Rose via Tagging]

Hello, sorry I'm late to this discussion. I added a bunch of Klingon language 
country names to OSM a few days ago, which were reverted.

Regardless about whether the OSM community think names in {tlhIngan Hol} should get the {HISlaH} "yea" or {ghobe'} 
"nay", I think it's important that any rule about multilingual names should be written in such a way to not exclude 
indigenous and minority language communities. What counts as a "full" or "real" language is actually a hard 
problem even among professional linguists. Ultimately whether a language is a language doesn't have to do with how it came to 
exist, it has to do with whether it has a lexicon and grammar that can be used to communicate, and whether it is used among a 
community of people. Making rules about what kinds of communities or domains of use should count as valid quickly becomes a 
thorny political exercise. There are a number of indigenous language communities who do not have living native speakers due to 
historical efforts to suppress their languages, but have active language development and language revival efforts, and could want 
to make use of maps for them. Excluding minority languages from official recognition and contemporary media is exactly the kind 
of thing that has been used to suppress them in the past. It can be difficult to write sensible rules excluding conlangs that 
wouldn't impact such communities. I would object to rules that require large numbers of native speakers or first-language 
speakers for "notable" languages, for reasons that have nothing to do with constructed languages.

Less seriously, while nations, major cities, and famous places do have a lot of 
language tags, I don't think a flood of conlang names is actually a problem. To 
my knowledge Sindarin doesn't have names for Earth places because it is a 
language of Middle-Earth and the elves were more concerned with places like 
Thangorodrim than ones like Barcelona. This is often the case with alien or 
fantasy conlangs—Dothraki don't need directions in Denver. Auxlangs like 
Esperanto conceive of themselves as international projects and thus may have a 
large number of names for countries. However, as a practical matter, there are 
only a few historically important conlangs that have a ISO 639-3 code at all. 
While there are ongoing revisions to those standards, unfortunately in recent 
years the body has consistently rejected new codes for conlangs. Specifically, 
a number were proposed in 2017 but rejected under new criteria adopted at that 
time. Esperanto has first-language speakers and would meet that criteria, but 
Klingon has been alive only for decades, not for generations yet. So it's very 
unlikely that aside from a few grandfathered exceptions, there will be new ISO 
639-3 codes for conlangs for people to worry about, at least for a few decades. 
A more urgent problem might be how to support names in conlangs and other 
languages that don't yet have ISO 639-3 codes.
https://iso639-3.sil.org/code_changes/change_request_index/data/2017
https://iso639-3.sil.org/sites/iso639-3/files/criteria_for_coded_languages.pdf

While the toponymy of {Qo'noS} is well outside the scope of OSM, certainly some Klingon country, city, and 
state names for places here on {tera'} are verifiable within the contemporary human Klingon community. The 
Klingon language community runs the Klingon Language Institute, there is a very active Learn Klingon Facebook 
group, klingonwiki.net, and two major annual conventions: {qep'a'} "Great Meeting" in Indianapolis 
in July, and {qepHom} "Little Meeting" in Saarbrücken in November, as well as occasional smaller 
{qepHommey} "Little Meetings". Klingonists are active on social media platforms such as Twitter and 
YouTube as well as producing podcasts, zines, books, operas, and plays. (You may not have seen or 
participated in fluent conversations conducted in Klingon, but I certainly have, and I'd be happy provide 
examples.) One could easily approach Klingonists in any of these venues about these names and get the same 
answers. Maintainability is a problem with a variety of data in OSM, but the major conlangs have very active 
online communities in general, and I wouldn't have put the Klingon names in if I didn't intend to keep them 
updated. The reason I added Klingon country names to OSM is because I've been an active OSM editor for years 
with thousands of edits, am also a Klingonist, and thought that adding Klingon-langage names would enable the 
Klingon-language community to make use of OSM in cool ways. {'etlh QorghHa'lu'chugh ragh 'etlh nIvqu' 'ej 
jejHa'choH.} [1]

In Klingon, we don't have more than a few dozen agreed-upon names for countries as well 
as a handful of major cities and regions. The usual process for new vocabulary, including 
toponyms, in Klingon is to submit suggestions for new words to the {chabal tetlh} in 
spring for discussion and clarification, and an official list of {mu'mey chu'} "new 
words" is 

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Joseph Eisenberg]

"taking "Harvard Square" as an example,
that refers to an area around the road junctions.  It includes the
sidewalks, and it includes the businesses and buildings that are on the
roads that border the center, and even includes things that are perhaps
50-100m down side roads, as long as they are sort of part of the same
logical larger place."

In that case use a place=neighbourhood node, since this is a named
part of a larger settlement, aka "a neighbo(u)rhood"

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On 3/28/20, Clifford Snow  wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 5:23 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>
>> I can think of one US city square which has "square" in the name
>> (not square shaped, though) that is rather well-known.  If you
>> can't think of it the ball will drop eventually, at midnight on Dec 31st.
>>
>> The University of Washington has "Red Square" tagged as a place=square
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/47.65612/-122.30974
> Madison, WI has a square tagged as a park.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/415148381
> Atenas, CR has a square, as many Costa Rica cities, also tagged as a park.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/9.97911/-84.37985
>
>
> --
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Overhead lines management (consecutive to line_attachment)

[François Lacombe]

Hi and thank you Joseph,

Answers are on the Talk page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Lines_management

All the best

François

Le ven. 27 mars 2020 à 01:55, Joseph Eisenberg 
a écrit :

> The explanation of line_management=branch is not very clear:
>
> "==Loops are actual branches==
> Former undocumented key {{Tag|branch:type}} had a value for
> connections between several power lines coming from the same
> direction: ''loop''.
>
> "It is proposed to consider them as branches due to
> [http://osm.janos-koenig.de/IMG_0046.JPG such situations] where 3
> lines connect to the same support and look like a loop but shouldn't
> be described this way."
>
> What does this mean?
>
> Another part says:
>
> tower:type=branch ( + branch:type=loop) -> to be replaced by
> line_management=branch
>
> "Two or more independent circuits are connected in the same direction
> to maintain a dead part of the network under a positive voltage"
>
> What's a dead part of the network? What do you mean by positive
> voltage, can voltage be negative?
>
> Also, it's mentioned that tower:type=crossing (where a power line
> crosses a river or canyon) should be replaced by height=* + designe=*
> where "A support is significantly higher and stronger to allow a line
> to cross an obstacle like rivers"
>
> Are you proposing any new values of "design=*" for this, or should
> existing values be used?
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On 3/27/20, François Lacombe  wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The line_management=* proposal vote will be open starting on next Monday.
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_management
> >
> > Clarifications and improvements have been made as follow :
> > * Focus on power only and remove telecom usecase. Proposed terminology is
> > generic enough to be used in telecom sector in a further proposal to give
> > better solutions to tag telecom supports.
> > * Remove line_management=loop and consider them as line_management=branch
> >
> > Proposed key has been used by 6 people on ~450 features already without
> big
> > problems it seems.
> >
> > Feel free to raise concerns or wait next week to vote on the document.
> >
> > All the best
> >
> > François
> >
> > Le jeu. 9 janv. 2020 à 01:08, François Lacombe <
> fl.infosrese...@gmail.com>
> > a écrit :
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> This proposal is still in RFC and may be voted in a couple of weeks as
> >> evaluation shown no issue so far, at least on transmission power lines.
> >> line_management tag is used carefully for testing.
> >> Read more :
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/InfosReseaux/diary/391058
> >>
> >> Nevertheless it's an opportunity to review the branch:type tag
> >> replacement
> >> with line_management=*
> >>
> >> i'm still looking for an appropriate illustration for two values
> >> examples:
> >> * line_management=cross (two or more lines with different directions
> >> sharing the same support without connecting)
> >> * line_management=loop (two or more lines coming from the same direction
> >> are connected as to mock some of them)
> >>
> >> Feel free to propose and complete if you find corresponding situations
> on
> >> ground
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance
> >>
> >> François
> >>
> >> Le sam. 26 oct. 2019 à 20:59, François Lacombe
> >> 
> >> a écrit :
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> After the review of line_attachment key this summer and Karlsruhe
> >>> hackweekend at Geofabrik headquarters last week, let me introduce the
> >>> second stage of tower:type key cleaning project for power lines. Great
> >>> time
> >>> has been spent on discussing and finding relevant situations.
> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_management
> >>>
> >>> It's now about the arrangement of power lines around their supports:
> how
> >>> the lines branch, split, transpose or terminate.
> >>> As current tagging (without line_management) still collides with any
> >>> tower building function, the line_management key may be a solution to
> >>> strip
> >>> unrelated values from tower:type.
> >>>
> >>> I've published a diary entry to give more explanations
> >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/InfosReseaux/diary/391058
> >>>
> >>> I'd draw your attention to the conclusion :
> >>> "Mapping utility supports like power towers or telecom poles is a
> >>> worldwide challenge. For instance in France, professionals including
> >>> operators and contractors rolling out overhead telecom cables are
> >>> currently
> >>> looking for approx. 16 millions missing shared power poles that weren’t
> >>> mapped in operational GIS. There’s no doubt updating OSM can help."
> >>> There's no short term risk of importing massive data, at least.
> >>>
> >>> This proposal is a first try and may cause worries about some local
> >>> concerns. RFC is here to solve this prior to vote anything.
> >>> We have to focus on simple situations to begin with to adopt the right
> >>> semantic. More complex cases will be added step by step.
> >>> 

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Clifford Snow]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 5:23 PM Paul Allen  wrote:


> I can think of one US city square which has "square" in the name
> (not square shaped, though) that is rather well-known.  If you
> can't think of it the ball will drop eventually, at midnight on Dec 31st.
>
> The University of Washington has "Red Square" tagged as a place=square
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/47.65612/-122.30974
Madison, WI has a square tagged as a park.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/415148381
Atenas, CR has a square, as many Costa Rica cities, also tagged as a park.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/9.97911/-84.37985


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 at 00:08, Greg Troxel  wrote:

What about a grassy area surrounded by streets.  We call that "town
> common" usually (even though people may not bring their animals to graze
> on it), but we would not call it a square, almost always.
>

Could be a common or a park, depending.  Not usually a square, though.
Not with grass.  I'm not entirely sure why, but that's how it seems to be.

I have concluded that we have very few squares in the US,
>

I can think of one US city square which has "square" in the name
(not square shaped, though) that is rather well-known.  If you
can't think of it the ball will drop eventually, at midnight on Dec 31st.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Greg Troxel]

Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:

> Am Di., 24. März 2020 um 18:23 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel :
>
>> So one definition is
>>
>>   a square is an area with an indistinct boundary that is known by a
>>   placename by most locals.
>
> I would rather say "distinct" boundaries".

This leads me to understand how we are not understanding each other!


I think you are saying that the open, typically hard-surfaced, typically
square area that is typically contained within roadways, is exactly the
square.  That one should draw a way around that area, such that no roads
are in the way, and typically no buildings, and then place=square should
be tagged on the way.  In other words, the square is only that area, not
the nearby roads, not the buildings that are across streets from the
square, and not buildings that are 50m down a side street from the
square.

For a US(New England) square, taking "Harvard Square" as an example,
that refers to an area around the road junctions.  It includes the
sidewalks, and it includes the businesses and buildings that are on the
roads that border the center, and even includes things that are perhaps
50-100m down side roads, as long as they are sort of part of the same
logical larger place.  This is what I mean by indistinct, as each shop
farther way is somewhat less "in Harvard Square" (and eventually
somewhat more "in Central Square" as you head towards Boston), but there
is no shop you can point to and say "this is the last shop in Harvard
Square on this side of Mass. Ave."  One would say that a store on one of
those streets is "in Harvard Square".  No one would use the phrase "on
Harvard Square".

So our square is a place, grown up around an intersection, and grounded
by name in that intersection.  Which i think amounts to "Things called
squares in New England are very rarely place=square in OSM, and
certainly having square in the name is not a presumption that it is
place=square."




>> Almost always there are multiple roads intersecting, and typically it
>> has some degree of importance (commerce, cultural, historical, or
>> other) that is locally notable.

> question of size. Small square will typically have less importance than
> bigger ones.

Agreed - just that there is some local in the math sense max of
notability, not that they are equal.

>>   There may or may not be an open area where people can gather.
>
> there must be an open area (a square _is_ an open area), but it may not
> always be possible for people to gather (in particular while the space is
> occupied by traffic, parked vehicles, lawn that is not accessible, a bus
> station, etc.), although in extreme situations (think riots, political
> demonstrations, ...) these spaces could probably be used to gather even if
> it wasn't possible under normal conditions.

I find the notion of an open area to gather being necessary, while it
being ok that they perhaps cannot gather to be very strange.   I think
you don't mean "people could stand in the middle of the street", in
which case every intersection is a square.

>> Typically the name is not primarily associated with the location as
>> a settlement, although almost always people live there.
>
> people will not live on a square, they might be living around the square,
> but you can also find squares in business districts where nobody lives. The
> definition is not about usage, but about spatial configuration.

See above about the polygon on the open space, vs the region.  I
understand you now.

>> To have this make sense, we really need a definition that one can read
>> while standing someplace and declare it to be a square or not a square.
>> I remain quite skeptical.
>
> squares are like streets, but unlike streets which are made to move,
> squares are made to stay.

I don't find that clear enough.  Streets were made for walking and for
horses, and now they are used by cars.

What about a grassy area surrounded by streets.  We call that "town
common" usually (even though people may not bring their animals to graze
on it), but we would not call it a square, almost always.  


I have concluded that we have very few squares in the US, so I am pretty
unconcerned, as long as it's clear that there is no basis for "Foo
Square" to be presumed to be an osm square.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 27.03.2020 o 23:30, Paul Allen pisze:
> The first words of the first sentence of the first paragraph of that
> WP article:
> "Piccadilly Circus is a road junction and public space..."  Public
> space, so
> as far as OSM tagging based upon British English goes, place=square.

And later in this article it's directly called a plaza:/
/

/Directly underneath the plaza is Piccadilly Circus Underground station,
part of the London Underground system. //
/

which is in turn being defined as:/
/

/A plaza /ˈplɑːzə/, pedestrian plaza, or place is an open urban public
space, such as a city square.[1]
/

So I also see it as a good candidate to tag it as place=square.

***

In Polish there are some common words in use, like "plac" and "skwer"
(both are similar to the words in some other languages, as you see) and
while the first one is the most generic term, the second one relates to
a smaller space, and is defined on Polish Wikipedia as a recreation
space, which is what I have noticed in a real world, however
commemorative use is also popular, but not mentioned here:

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skwer

No difference is stated in "plac" definition, there is simply also a
"rynek" (market square - also common name, said do to be derived from
German "Ring" - a space with a building inside) and "agora" mentioned:

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plac

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rynek_(urbanistyka)

It looks like this is not a real classification system, the use of any
of them in the name can be just a traditional toponym. For example
market squares today can be just generic public spaces, while their
function is nowadays usually related to amenity=marketplace or shopping
centers/malls (called Plaza sometimes, even if they are not an open
space, but buildings - see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza#Buildings_called_'Plaza' ).


-- 
"Rzeczy się psują – zęby, spłuczki, kompy, związki, pralki" [Bisz]

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 22:23, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> If we English speakers are looking at a map of the world, we prefer to see
> our own names for places.  The media here don't report an earthquake in
> Roma
> but an earthquake in Rome.  They don't report a general strike in
> Deutschland
> but a general strike in Germany.  They don't report an avalanche in
> Helvetica
> but an avalanche in Switzerland.  So if we're interested in seeing on a map
> where those places are we'd like to see them in English, not names we're
> unfamiliar with.  I have no idea what Sverige is, but I've heard of Sweden.
>

Thanks, Paul - you summed up my point of view exactly, but probably worded
it better than I could have!

OTOH, if we're tourists we'd like the option to see both.  I want to go to
> Munich from Berlin but I can't find Munich on the map because it's
> showing the German name.  But if the map shows only English names
> (where available) I don't know what to look for on road signs.
>
> You might also want to consider different orthographies.  Even if you
> use the same word (phonetically) for Mecca that Saudi Arabians do,
> could you find the place on a map where it is labelled مَكَّةُ
>

& this as well!

  Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 21:59, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> to give an example of an object which I would call a square (maybe not in
> English): https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.50997/-0.13430
>
> Piccadilly Circus (note the different word).
>

Not a place I've ever been to.  But I can read about it...

Is this a town square for British people? I notice the English WP seems to
> avoid the word square (although it then calls it a plaza), while both,
> Italian and German, have the word piazza / Platz in the subtitle.
>

The first words of the first sentence of the first paragraph of that WP
article:
"Piccadilly Circus is a road junction and public space..."  Public space, so
as far as OSM tagging based upon British English goes, place=square.
It's called a circus rather than a square because, as the WP article
explains,
"In this context, a circus, from the Latin word meaning "circle", is a
round open
space at a street junction" and it was originally more closely circular.

So it's not square in shape and doesn't have "square" in the name but is a
public space and meets the current definition (well, as of last time I
looked a few hours ago) in the wiki of place=square.

With hindsight, place=public_space might have been better.  But we're
stuck with many historical tags.  You go to map with the tags you
have, not the tags you want (as Donald Rumsfeld said).

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Mar 2020, at 13:36, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> I would like to came back to the proposal of using place=square with the 
> addition of the type of the square as a second key where we can accommodate  
> the various interpretations according the local varieties.


I agree that from a German point of view, there are different common types of 
squares, namely Schlossplatz, Rathausplatz, Marktplatz, Torplatz, maybe 
Festplatz(I’d tend to put these in a different category), Bahnhofsvorplatz, 
Vorplatz in general (e.g. in front of a sports stadium or theatre, courthouse, 
etc.), Kirchplatz
These are all referring to the “reason” of the square (either what is happening 
on the square or the building for which it was built).

In Italy, there’s a typology that is functional but also about size: piazzale 
(big open space, not necessarily with the urbanistic function of a piazza), 
piazza: representative open space at the end of a street (usually bordered by 
significant buildings), often a junction of several streets, piazzetta is a 
small and typically quiet square, a “largo” is similar to a piazza but with 
less significance (in particular architectonically) and could sometimes just be 
a widening of the road.

From these 2 examples how squares (I keep using this word although I am not 
sure it actually applies) are classified (often in names), which is the 
approach you had thought about?

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Mar 2020, at 13:06, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> This is untrue of British English, when speaking of town squares.  In geometry
> a square is a particular shape, a subset of the class of rectangles,  In the
> geometrical sense objects can be square regardless of their function.  But
> when you're talking (in British English) about a town square you're talking
> about a specific function, rather than the shape.


to give an example of an object which I would call a square (maybe not in 
English): https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.50997/-0.13430

Piccadilly Circus (note the different word).
Is this a town square for British people? I notice the English WP seems to 
avoid the word square (although it then calls it a plaza), while both, Italian 
and German, have the word piazza / Platz in the subtitle.

Cheers Martin 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

[Phake Nick]

在 2020年3月27日週五 17:14，  寫道：

>
>
> On March 25, 2020 11:50:15 AM GMT+01:00, Phake Nick 
> wrote:
> >在 2020年3月25日週三 18:34，Frederik Ramm  寫道：
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 25.03.20 11:19, Phake Nick wrote:
> >> > My guess is that about 5% of name:xx tags in OSM actually
> >represent a
> >> > unique name in its own right; all others are either copies of
> >the
> >> name
> >> > tag ("this city does not have its own name in language XX but I
> >want
> >> > every city to have a name:xx tag so I'll just copy the name
> >tag"), or
> >> > transliterations (or, worst case, even literal translations).
> >> >
> >> > Isn't that the function of the key?
> >>
> >> Unsure which of my list items you mean - copying the original name is
> >> not the function of the key; a data user can simply fall back to the
> >> name tag if no name:xx is given. Making a transliteration is also not
> >> the the function of the key, since transliterations can be automated.
> >> Making a translation is *certainly* not wanted!
> >>
> >
> >How can a data consumer know that whether end user of a certain
> >language is
> >going to understand the original language?
> >And transliteration cannot be automated. There are many specific rules
> >and
> >exceptions when transliterting place names in different language
> >software.
> >There are already some OSM-based software that would offer automatic
> >transliteration but their results are far from being usable. Making
> >translation is *absolutely essential* for people from different part of
> >the
> >world to make use of OSM data. Last time when I was travelling in some
> >foreign nations, I have to give up using OSM because of poor coverage
> >of
> >translated name for my language in that country which make me unable to
> >understand what the OSM map is saying.
> >
>
> Could you elaborate on this? I would like an example object that you tried
> navigating to and failed.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>

As an example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3970414 is a relation
for a district named as "Dalseo-gu" in Korea. To transliterate Korean name
into Chinese or Cantonese language, the general rule is that one need to
identify the etymology root of the Korean word. In this case it is "Dal
City (Ancient name of Daegu)'s Western District". The best software that
can do this matching is Google Translate the machine translation site but
even they can only offer ~90% accuracy in identify name of places (They
failed in this example), and that's barring name of places that don't
follow this rule including all Korean name that have no Chinese roots.
Those words need to independently phonetically or etymologically
translated. After identifying the etymological root, one can then
transmiterate the etymological root into Chinese characters, which have a
smaller but still non-zero chance of failing due to the simplification rule
of the Chinese character system especially for the Simplified Chinese. And
then in the end "Dalseo-gu" in Korean will be translated into "Daxiqu" in
Mandarin Chinese and "Datsaikui" in Cantonese.

>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

[Simon Poole]

I think we are in violent agreement.

Am 27.03.2020 um 14:04 schrieb Paul Allen:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 12:31, Simon Poole  > wrote:
>
> The point is that the name in question isn't actually the name in
> de-CH, it's the Swedish name.
>
>
> I was hoping some would understand better by reversing the positions.
>
> The general norm all over the world is that most places -don't-
> have names in languages that are not used locally.
>
> Agreed.  There are a lot of named places in the world, ranging from
> countries
> down to short side-streets.  But some, the important and/or well-known
> ones,
> do have names in other languages.
>
> Pretending that they do isn't a useful concept and yes they
> typically won't have transliterations either.
>
> I'm not pretending the street I'm on has a name in Mandarin.  But the
> country I'm in does.  As does the capital of my country.  My town,
> probably not.
>
> There is valid reason to permit foreign-language names where such exist
> and to permit transliterations where orthography is sufficiently different
> to make the local name incomprehensible.  Duplicating the name=*
> in other languages than the local one(s) isn't sensible.
>
> -- 
> Paul
>


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 12:31, Simon Poole  wrote:

> The point is that the name in question isn't actually the name in de-CH,
> it's the Swedish name.
>

I was hoping some would understand better by reversing the positions.

> The general norm all over the world is that most places -don't- have names
> in languages that are not used locally.
>
Agreed.  There are a lot of named places in the world, ranging from
countries
down to short side-streets.  But some, the important and/or well-known ones,
do have names in other languages.

> Pretending that they do isn't a useful concept and yes they typically
> won't have transliterations either.
>
I'm not pretending the street I'm on has a name in Mandarin.  But the
country I'm in does.  As does the capital of my country.  My town,
probably not.

There is valid reason to permit foreign-language names where such exist
and to permit transliterations where orthography is sufficiently different
to make the local name incomprehensible.  Duplicating the name=*
in other languages than the local one(s) isn't sensible.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Volker Schmidt]

Disclaimer:
I am German, so I am tackling the issue with my conscious and unconscious
German background: The German word for a "square" is Platz, a word  that
can also mean "location".

I would like to came back to the proposal of using place=square with the
addition of the type of the square as a second key where we can
accommodate  the various interpretations according the local varieties.
We could start with an image gallery in the discussion part of the "square"
wiki page. Each image would be accompanied by the local term used for the
object and an English translation/explanation of what the local term means.
Once we have enough samples we could look into how to tag theses objects
with a second tag ("square=" or "square:type=")
Note that "square=" is already in use:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/square#overview

Volker



On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 13:06, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 14:09, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>> Am Di., 24. März 2020 um 14:07 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen > >:
>>
>>> An area that was once used as a town square (hard-surfaced place where
>>> the public
>>> congregate and may or may not be used for meetings) may retain the name
>>> "Foo Square" even though it is now a car park or a bus station.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe there is a fundamental difference in the expectations of what a
>> town square constitutes, e.g. in English as compared to German or Italian?
>>
>
> It's starting to look that way.
>
> From my understanding, a square is about a spatial configuration, but it
>> does not imply any specific function and does not exclude that there is a
>> car park or bus station _on_ the square.
>>
>
> This is untrue of British English, when speaking of town squares.  In
> geometry
> a square is a particular shape, a subset of the class of rectangles,  In
> the
> geometrical sense objects can be square regardless of their function.  But
> when you're talking (in British English) about a town square you're talking
> about a specific function, rather than the shape.
>
> A town square need not be square.  It could be in a village or hamlet
> rather
> than a town.  It usually has a hard surface (or it would probably be better
> mapped as a park).  It is usually bounded by roads and/or buildings, but
> not
> necessarily so on all sides (one or more sides could be a border with a
> field).
> People can go there either as individuals to contemplate, or to congregate
> for
> some pre-arranged purpose.  There may be a few seats here and there, but
> not so
> many as to fall into the category of picnic area or outdoor seating area.
> It may or
> may not have the word "square" in its name; not all places with "square"
> in the
> name are town squares (but may once have been).  It is open to the public.
>
> The above is a broad generalization, of course.  An alternative (but
> broadly similar) view of it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_square
> Particularly useful in that article is the translation of town square into
> other countries: "platz" (German), "piazza" (Italy), "markt" (Netherlands)
> because the town square is sometimes used as a market place,
> plaza (Spain).
>
> I wouldn't quibble about minor deviations from my definition or the
> Wikipedia
> one: it's primarily about function and if the locals think of it as a town
> square
> then it's a town square even if it has far too many seats and planters
> filled with vegetation for my liking.  But it's not about having a square
> shape or having "square" in the name - a lot of places in the US have
> "square" in the name despite being irregular in shape and not being
> public squares.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

[Simon Poole]

The point is that the name in question isn't actually the name in de-CH,
it's the Swedish name.

The general norm all over the world is that most places -don't- have
names in languages that are not used locally. Pretending that they do
isn't a useful concept and yes they typically won't have
transliterations either.

Am 27.03.2020 um 13:21 schrieb Paul Allen:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 11:47, pangoSE  > wrote:
>
> Does it matter what I as a swede think?
>
> Perhaps.  It depends how you answer my question below. :)
>
> Names are (in my view) socially constructed and constantly agreed
> upon by the users of the language. I don't speak Swiss High German
> so I'm not really in a position to judge what to call this city in
> that language. IMO OSM is not a suitable place for speakers of
> Swiss High German
>
>  [...]
>  
> Does the dialect of Swedish you speak have different names for various
> well-known locations in the world that differ from the names used by
> people
> living there?  English does.  We use Germany for Deutschland.  We use Roma
> for Rome.  We use Switzerland for Helvetica.  Etc.  The French use Londres
> for London and Royaume Uni for the United Kingdom.
>
> If we English speakers are looking at a map of the world, we prefer to see
> our own names for places.  The media here don't report an earthquake
> in Roma
> but an earthquake in Rome.  They don't report a general strike in
> Deutschland
> but a general strike in Germany.  They don't report an avalanche in
> Helvetica
> but an avalanche in Switzerland.  So if we're interested in seeing on
> a map
> where those places are we'd like to see them in English, not names we're
> unfamiliar with.  I have no idea what Sverige is, but I've heard of
> Sweden.
>
> OTOH, if we're tourists we'd like the option to see both.  I want to go to
> Munich from Berlin but I can't find Munich on the map because it's
> showing the German name.  But if the map shows only English names
> (where available) I don't know what to look for on road signs.
>
> You might also want to consider different orthographies.  Even if you
> use the same word (phonetically) for Mecca that Saudi Arabians do,
> could you find the place on a map where it is labelled مَكَّةُ
>
> -
> Paul
>


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 11:47, pangoSE  wrote:

> Does it matter what I as a swede think?
>
Perhaps.  It depends how you answer my question below. :)

Names are (in my view) socially constructed and constantly agreed upon by
> the users of the language. I don't speak Swiss High German so I'm not
> really in a position to judge what to call this city in that language. IMO
> OSM is not a suitable place for speakers of Swiss High German
>
 [...]

Does the dialect of Swedish you speak have different names for various
well-known locations in the world that differ from the names used by people
living there?  English does.  We use Germany for Deutschland.  We use Roma
for Rome.  We use Switzerland for Helvetica.  Etc.  The French use Londres
for London and Royaume Uni for the United Kingdom.

If we English speakers are looking at a map of the world, we prefer to see
our own names for places.  The media here don't report an earthquake in Roma
but an earthquake in Rome.  They don't report a general strike in
Deutschland
but a general strike in Germany.  They don't report an avalanche in
Helvetica
but an avalanche in Switzerland.  So if we're interested in seeing on a map
where those places are we'd like to see them in English, not names we're
unfamiliar with.  I have no idea what Sverige is, but I've heard of Sweden.

OTOH, if we're tourists we'd like the option to see both.  I want to go to
Munich from Berlin but I can't find Munich on the map because it's
showing the German name.  But if the map shows only English names
(where available) I don't know what to look for on road signs.

You might also want to consider different orthographies.  Even if you
use the same word (phonetically) for Mecca that Saudi Arabians do,
could you find the place on a map where it is labelled مَكَّةُ

-
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 14:09, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Am Di., 24. März 2020 um 14:07 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen  >:
>
>> An area that was once used as a town square (hard-surfaced place where
>> the public
>> congregate and may or may not be used for meetings) may retain the name
>> "Foo Square" even though it is now a car park or a bus station.
>>
>
> Maybe there is a fundamental difference in the expectations of what a town
> square constitutes, e.g. in English as compared to German or Italian?
>

It's starting to look that way.

>From my understanding, a square is about a spatial configuration, but it
> does not imply any specific function and does not exclude that there is a
> car park or bus station _on_ the square.
>

This is untrue of British English, when speaking of town squares.  In
geometry
a square is a particular shape, a subset of the class of rectangles,  In the
geometrical sense objects can be square regardless of their function.  But
when you're talking (in British English) about a town square you're talking
about a specific function, rather than the shape.

A town square need not be square.  It could be in a village or hamlet rather
than a town.  It usually has a hard surface (or it would probably be better
mapped as a park).  It is usually bounded by roads and/or buildings, but not
necessarily so on all sides (one or more sides could be a border with a
field).
People can go there either as individuals to contemplate, or to congregate
for
some pre-arranged purpose.  There may be a few seats here and there, but
not so
many as to fall into the category of picnic area or outdoor seating area.
It may or
may not have the word "square" in its name; not all places with "square" in
the
name are town squares (but may once have been).  It is open to the public.

The above is a broad generalization, of course.  An alternative (but
broadly similar) view of it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_square
Particularly useful in that article is the translation of town square into
other countries: "platz" (German), "piazza" (Italy), "markt" (Netherlands)
because the town square is sometimes used as a market place,
plaza (Spain).

I wouldn't quibble about minor deviations from my definition or the
Wikipedia
one: it's primarily about function and if the locals think of it as a town
square
then it's a town square even if it has far too many seats and planters
filled with vegetation for my liking.  But it's not about having a square
shape or having "square" in the name - a lot of places in the US have
"square" in the name despite being irregular in shape and not being
public squares.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

[pangoSE]

Does it matter what I as a swede think?

If the tourists/officials visiting speaking Swiss High German(among each 
other) choose to call this city that its fine by me. If the city ever 
translate their homepage to de-ch I suppose they would call it the same.


Names are (in my view) socially constructed and constantly agreed upon 
by the users of the language. I don't speak Swiss High German so I'm not 
really in a position to judge what to call this city in that language. 
IMO OSM is not a suitable place for speakers of Swiss High Germanto 
argue what to call the city for reasons laid out here 
http://blog.imagico.de/verifiability-and-the-wikipediarization-of-openstreetmap/. 



This is very different from a street name that appears on a sign IMO, 
which is verifiable and can be seen by anyone in the same spot.


pangoSE

On 2020-03-27 10:47, Simon Poole wrote:


Just using the entry for your place, do you really think that an entry 
like say


Swiss High GermanHärnösand

makes sense? (Swiss High German is de-CH).

Simon

Am 27.03.2020 um 10:07 schrieb pang...@riseup.net:

Hi Simon.

Do you have a link? The Municipality I live in has sensible names in 
WD https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3240427


Does it matter to us in OSM if it "has the name"? I'm thinking that 
we outsource all the naming to WD to deal with and fight over.
In OSM we could instead concentrate on e.g. what language codes to 
display on osm.org e.g. name_osm=sv for a city with dominant Swedish 
population and name_osm=se for a town/city where most are Sami.
In the case of double naming on the ground we could have something 
like: name_osm= code1 / code2

Where code1 is the e.g. the Welsh and code2 is the English name.

The idea in these cases is the we get rid of all other name tags that 
can be stored and curated better in WD.


On March 25, 2020 10:48:45 PM GMT+01:00, Simon Poole  
wrote:


Note that lots of the wikidata names are nonsense and are simply
derived from the wikipedia page name (which a wp page has to
have, but it doesn't imply that the object actually has a name in
the language of the wikipedia you are looking at). For example
the municipality I live in has a German and a Swiss-German name,
it -doesn't- have names in any of the other 31 languages that are
listed.

Simon

Am 25.03.2020 um 11:00 schrieb pang...@riseup.net:

Honestly I don't think it makes sense for OSM to have names at
all on objects which has a Wikidata reference. We are just too
small a community to keep this updated and it has little value
to duplicate to the efforts made by others.
If any names I suggest we have a bot autoupdating all name tags
according to the values in Wikidata. If there is no Wikidata
item it should be found/created.
It really is'nt hard to populate a map with geographical data
from OSM and query the names the user wants to see from WD.
This offloads a huge burden as I see it.
All our tools that currently invites our users to include a name
could be adapted so that the user is aware that OSM is about
geodata and names are for WD and best stored/updated there.
If we allow a name to be set only when no qid we avoid the bulk
of these problems.
When a qid is set a bot could remove all names for languages
already present in WD.

On March 25, 2020 10:45:03 AM GMT+01:00, Andrew Hain
 wrote:

Why on earth would we not (excluding exceptional copyright
issues) want to have lots of different name:XX tags?

--
Andrew


*From:* Frederik Ramm 
*Sent:* 25 March 2020 09:26
*To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools

*Subject:* [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for
name:xx tags?
Hi,

the "name:xx" tags are something of an exception in OSM
because while we
defer to "local knowledge" as the highest-ranking source
normally, this
is not being done for name:xx tags. It is possible for no
single citizen
of the city of Karlsruhe to know its Russian name, but still
a Russian
name could exist. Who is the highest-ranking source for that?

My guess is that about 5% of name:xx tags in OSM actually
represent a
unique name in its own right; all others are either copies
of the name
tag ("this city does not have its own name in language XX
but I want
every city to have a name:xx tag so I'll just copy the name
tag"), or
transliterations (or, worst case, even literal translations).

A while ago we had a longer discussion about Esperanto
names; in that
discussion, it was questioned whether Esperanto could be in
the name tag
but nobody disputed that adding name:eo tags is ok, even though

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 24. März 2020 um 18:23 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel :

> Around here, squares are not square.  (Oral tradition is that our roads
> used to be cow paths.)



indeed, from this thread it seems we all agree that squares do not have to
have a square shape (even who asked about this seems was of this opinion)



> So one definition is
>
>   a square is an area with an indistinct boundary that is known by a
>   placename by most locals.



I would rather say "distinct" boundaries".



> Almost always there are multiple roads
>   intersecting, and typically it has some degree of importance
>   (commerce, cultural, historical, or other) that is locally notable.
>


question of size. Small square will typically have less importance than
bigger ones.



>   There may or may not be an open area where people can gather.
>


there must be an open area (a square _is_ an open area), but it may not
always be possible for people to gather (in particular while the space is
occupied by traffic, parked vehicles, lawn that is not accessible, a bus
station, etc.), although in extreme situations (think riots, political
demonstrations, ...) these spaces could probably be used to gather even if
it wasn't possible under normal conditions.



>   Typically the name is not primarily associated with the location as a
>   settlement, although almost always people live there.
>


people will not live on a square, they might be living around the square,
but you can also find squares in business districts where nobody lives. The
definition is not about usage, but about spatial configuration.



>
> but by then it is so watered down, it might as well be place=locality.
>


any toponym (not related to a settlement or part of it) could be a
place=locality, as this is a generic fallback for toponyms.


>
> To have this make sense, we really need a definition that one can read
> while standing someplace and declare it to be a square or not a square.
> I remain quite skeptical.



squares are like streets, but unlike streets which are made to move,
squares are made to stay.

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

[Simon Poole]

Just using the entry for your place, do you really think that an entry
like say

Swiss High GermanHärnösand

makes sense? (Swiss High German is de-CH).

Simon

Am 27.03.2020 um 10:07 schrieb pang...@riseup.net:
> Hi Simon.
>
> Do you have a link? The Municipality I live in has sensible names in
> WD https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3240427
>
> Does it matter to us in OSM if it "has the name"? I'm thinking that we
> outsource all the naming to WD to deal with and fight over.
> In OSM we could instead concentrate on e.g. what language codes to
> display on osm.org e.g. name_osm=sv for a city with dominant Swedish
> population and name_osm=se for a town/city where most are Sami.
> In the case of double naming on the ground we could have something
> like: name_osm= code1 / code2
> Where code1 is the e.g. the Welsh and code2 is the English name.
>
> The idea in these cases is the we get rid of all other name tags that
> can be stored and curated better in WD.
>
> On March 25, 2020 10:48:45 PM GMT+01:00, Simon Poole 
> wrote:
>
> Note that lots of the wikidata names are nonsense and are simply
> derived from the wikipedia page name (which a wp page has to have,
> but it doesn't imply that the object actually has a name in the
> language of the wikipedia you are looking at). For example the
> municipality I live in has a German and a Swiss-German name, it
> -doesn't- have names in any of the other 31 languages that are listed.
>
> Simon
>
> Am 25.03.2020 um 11:00 schrieb pang...@riseup.net:
>> Honestly I don't think it makes sense for OSM to have names at
>> all on objects which has a Wikidata reference. We are just too
>> small a community to keep this updated and it has little value to
>> duplicate to the efforts made by others.
>> If any names I suggest we have a bot autoupdating all name tags
>> according to the values in Wikidata. If there is no Wikidata item
>> it should be found/created.
>> It really is'nt hard to populate a map with geographical data
>> from OSM and query the names the user wants to see from WD.
>> This offloads a huge burden as I see it.
>> All our tools that currently invites our users to include a name
>> could be adapted so that the user is aware that OSM is about
>> geodata and names are for WD and best stored/updated there.
>> If we allow a name to be set only when no qid we avoid the bulk
>> of these problems.
>> When a qid is set a bot could remove all names for languages
>> already present in WD.
>>
>> On March 25, 2020 10:45:03 AM GMT+01:00, Andrew Hain
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Why on earth would we not (excluding exceptional copyright
>> issues) want to have lots of different name:XX tags?
>>
>> --
>> Andrew
>>
>> 
>> 
>> *From:* Frederik Ramm 
>> *Sent:* 25 March 2020 09:26
>> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
>> 
>> *Subject:* [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for
>> name:xx tags?
>>  
>> Hi,
>>
>> the "name:xx" tags are something of an exception in OSM
>> because while we
>> defer to "local knowledge" as the highest-ranking source
>> normally, this
>> is not being done for name:xx tags. It is possible for no
>> single citizen
>> of the city of Karlsruhe to know its Russian name, but still
>> a Russian
>> name could exist. Who is the highest-ranking source for that?
>>
>> My guess is that about 5% of name:xx tags in OSM actually
>> represent a
>> unique name in its own right; all others are either copies of
>> the name
>> tag ("this city does not have its own name in language XX but
>> I want
>> every city to have a name:xx tag so I'll just copy the name
>> tag"), or
>> transliterations (or, worst case, even literal translations).
>>
>> A while ago we had a longer discussion about Esperanto names;
>> in that
>> discussion, it was questioned whether Esperanto could be in
>> the name tag
>> but nobody disputed that adding name:eo tags is ok, even though
>> Esperanto is an invented (or "constructed") language.
>>
>> Yesterday someone added a few dozen Klingon names to
>> countries in OSM. I
>> have reverted that because of a copyright issue, but I think
>> we also
>> need to discuss which languages we want to accept for name:xx
>> tags.
>>
>> In my opinion, a name:xx tag should only be added if you can
>> demonstrate
>> that people natively speaking the living language xx are
>> actually using
>> this name for this entity. I think we have a very unhealthy
>> inflation of
>> names in OSM that are 

Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

[pangose]

Thank you very much for writing that post. I wholeheartedly agree with your 
arguments. 
 
On the basis of this it makes even more sense to sidestep the name issues and 
leave the battle to wikidatans. We just map what is on the ground and they 
fight over the rest with references, judgements of sources, etc. 


On March 25, 2020 4:47:51 PM GMT+01:00, Christoph Hormann  
wrote:
>On Wednesday 25 March 2020, Jyri-Petteri Paloposki wrote:
>>
>> I slightly disagree with this one. IMO a name in a foreign language
>> would be admissible if it is recognised by native speakers of the
>> language either back home or in the local community OR if the name is
>> otherwise regarded correct by mainstream media or a language
>> authority.
>
>Yes, that line of reasoning is fairly widespread among mappers - 
>considering secondary sources of information as valid sources of 
>information for OSM and not requiring local verifiability but settling 
>for compatibility with the major consensus narrative of the mapper's 
>culture.
>
>I have written in more detail about the problems of this idea some time
>
>ago in
>
>http://blog.imagico.de/verifiability-and-the-wikipediarization-of-openstreetmap/
>
>-- 
>Christoph Hormann
>http://www.imagico.de/
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

[pangose]

On March 25, 2020 2:08:33 PM GMT+01:00, Paul Allen  wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 10:02,  wrote:
>
>> Honestly I don't think it makes sense for OSM to have names at all on
>> objects which has a Wikidata reference.
>>
>
>Not all mappable objects have a Wikidata reference.  Cities and big
>towns,
>yes.
>Villages and hamlets, most but not all.  Even where a wikidata
>reference
>exists,
>not all languages are given, even when some are actually used by
>locals.

Would it be a problem to add them to WD?

>
>I live in Wales.  Wales is multilingual, Welsh and English.  For some
>hamlets
>and villages there is no English Wikipedia page, just a Welsh one.  The
>Wikidata items for Welsh-only Wikipedia pages often have only the Welsh
>name.
>The road signs have both Welsh and English on them.
>
>Some of the small hamlets don't have a Wikipedia page at all, and no
>Wikidata
>item either.

This is not a problem, it could be created down the road by you or someone 
else. Until then we keep the names as we currently do.

>
>There is no Wikidata item for the short street around the corner from
>me.
>Its
>road sign says "Heol Napier / Napier Street" (the "/" isn't on the
>sign, I'm
>using it to represent a line break).  If that sign were replaced, it
>might
>instead say "Heol Napier Street."  There are a lot of mappable objects
>which don't have Wikidata items yet require names in at least two
>languages just to satisfy the people that live there on a permanent
>basis.
>
>We can't rely on Wikidata in multilingual localities.

I disagree. We could even add a property to WD stating the name on the ground, 
e.g. in your example "Heol Napier / Napier Street"

We could even model the newline by making two ranked statements.
local_name_on_ground=Heol Napier + rank=1
local_name_on_ground=Napier Street + rank=2

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

[pangose]

On March 25, 2020 11:50:15 AM GMT+01:00, Phake Nick  wrote:
>在 2020年3月25日週三 18:34，Frederik Ramm  寫道：
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 25.03.20 11:19, Phake Nick wrote:
>> > My guess is that about 5% of name:xx tags in OSM actually
>represent a
>> > unique name in its own right; all others are either copies of
>the
>> name
>> > tag ("this city does not have its own name in language XX but I
>want
>> > every city to have a name:xx tag so I'll just copy the name
>tag"), or
>> > transliterations (or, worst case, even literal translations).
>> >
>> > Isn't that the function of the key?
>>
>> Unsure which of my list items you mean - copying the original name is
>> not the function of the key; a data user can simply fall back to the
>> name tag if no name:xx is given. Making a transliteration is also not
>> the the function of the key, since transliterations can be automated.
>> Making a translation is *certainly* not wanted!
>>
>
>How can a data consumer know that whether end user of a certain
>language is
>going to understand the original language?
>And transliteration cannot be automated. There are many specific rules
>and
>exceptions when transliterting place names in different language
>software.
>There are already some OSM-based software that would offer automatic
>transliteration but their results are far from being usable. Making
>translation is *absolutely essential* for people from different part of
>the
>world to make use of OSM data. Last time when I was travelling in some
>foreign nations, I have to give up using OSM because of poor coverage
>of
>translated name for my language in that country which make me unable to
>understand what the OSM map is saying.
>

Could you elaborate on this? I would like an example object that you tried 
navigating to and failed. 

Thanks in advance.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

[pangose]

Hi Simon.

Do you have a link? The Municipality I live in has sensible names in WD 
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3240427

Does it matter to us in OSM if it "has the name"? I'm thinking that we 
outsource all the naming to WD to deal with and fight over.
In OSM we could instead concentrate on e.g. what language codes to display on 
osm.org e.g. name_osm=sv for a city with dominant Swedish population and 
name_osm=se for a town/city where most are Sami.
In the case of double naming on the ground we could have something like: 
name_osm= code1 / code2
Where code1 is the e.g. the Welsh and code2 is the English name.

The idea in these cases is the we get rid of all other name tags that can be 
stored and curated better in WD.

On March 25, 2020 10:48:45 PM GMT+01:00, Simon Poole  wrote:
>Note that lots of the wikidata names are nonsense and are simply
>derived
>from the wikipedia page name (which a wp page has to have, but it
>doesn't imply that the object actually has a name in the language of
>the
>wikipedia you are looking at). For example the municipality I live in
>has a German and a Swiss-German name, it -doesn't- have names in any of
>the other 31 languages that are listed.
>
>Simon
>
>Am 25.03.2020 um 11:00 schrieb pang...@riseup.net:
>> Honestly I don't think it makes sense for OSM to have names at all on
>> objects which has a Wikidata reference. We are just too small a
>> community to keep this updated and it has little value to duplicate
>to
>> the efforts made by others.
>> If any names I suggest we have a bot autoupdating all name tags
>> according to the values in Wikidata. If there is no Wikidata item it
>> should be found/created.
>> It really is'nt hard to populate a map with geographical data from
>OSM
>> and query the names the user wants to see from WD.
>> This offloads a huge burden as I see it.
>> All our tools that currently invites our users to include a name
>could
>> be adapted so that the user is aware that OSM is about geodata and
>> names are for WD and best stored/updated there.
>> If we allow a name to be set only when no qid we avoid the bulk of
>> these problems.
>> When a qid is set a bot could remove all names for languages already
>> present in WD.
>>
>> On March 25, 2020 10:45:03 AM GMT+01:00, Andrew Hain
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Why on earth would we not (excluding exceptional copyright
>issues)
>> want to have lots of different name:XX tags?
>>
>> --
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>
>> *From:* Frederik Ramm 
>> *Sent:* 25 March 2020 09:26
>> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
>> 
>> *Subject:* [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx
>tags?
>>  
>> Hi,
>>
>> the "name:xx" tags are something of an exception in OSM because
>> while we
>> defer to "local knowledge" as the highest-ranking source
>normally,
>> this
>> is not being done for name:xx tags. It is possible for no single
>> citizen
>> of the city of Karlsruhe to know its Russian name, but still a
>Russian
>> name could exist. Who is the highest-ranking source for that?
>>
>> My guess is that about 5% of name:xx tags in OSM actually
>represent a
>> unique name in its own right; all others are either copies of the
>name
>> tag ("this city does not have its own name in language XX but I
>want
>> every city to have a name:xx tag so I'll just copy the name
>tag"), or
>> transliterations (or, worst case, even literal translations).
>>
>> A while ago we had a longer discussion about Esperanto names; in
>that
>> discussion, it was questioned whether Esperanto could be in the
>> name tag
>> but nobody disputed that adding name:eo tags is ok, even though
>> Esperanto is an invented (or "constructed") language.
>>
>> Yesterday someone added a few dozen Klingon names to countries in
>> OSM. I
>> have reverted that because of a copyright issue, but I think we
>also
>> need to discuss which languages we want to accept for name:xx
>tags.
>>
>> In my opinion, a name:xx tag should only be added if you can
>> demonstrate
>> that people natively speaking the living language xx are actually
>> using
>> this name for this entity. I think we have a very unhealthy
>> inflation of
>> names in OSM that are added by "single-purpose mappers" - they
>> come in,
>> stick a name:my-favourite-language tag onto everything, and go
>away
>> again. Nobody knows if these names are even correct, and nobody
>cares
>> for their maintenance. The country North Macedonia changed its
>name
>> almost one year ago, yet roughly half of its ~ 170 name tags are
>still
>> what they were before this change. Nobody cares; these names
>suggest a
>> data richness that is not backed up by an actual living community
>that
>> cares for them.
>>
>> What are your opinions on which languages should be