Re: do “the current proposals would mean that any POI (not referring to a government building) in Brussels needs to be retagged to name:XX or add default:language:XX (?)
There are no mandatory tags in OSM, nothing needs to be retagged. But there would be the option to add default:language=fr to a shop in Flanders which has a name in French. This would help database users know that this shop name is in French rather than Flemish. I believe this will be very useful, and I think mappers will enjoy the chance to add the extra tags where necessary. Mapping is a bit addictive, right? My understanding of Brussels was that the streets have all been tagged with 3 name tags: name=*, name:fr=, and name:nl=. Right? So with knowledge that the default languages for Brussels are nl and fr (recorded with a single tag on the administrative boundary) a database user will know that they can use both name:fr and name:nl in combination to render the Street names, and also that both names are likely on signs. This is important for a Flemish, Dutch or French-localized service, which might want to show the name:nl or name:fr on all features, along with the local name. Right now it you attempt to do this by showing name=* and name:fr= at the same time (when they are not identical), you’ll get the French name labeled twice on every street in Brussels! Not good Joseph On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:38 PM Marc Gemis <[email protected]> wrote: > Some practical information from Belgium: > > We have three official languages nl,fr,de > Flanders is nl (*) > Brussels is nl;fr > Wallonia is Fr (*) > Eupen-Malmedy is de > > This means that town names, street names and bus stops can be expected > in the above mentioned languages. Same goes for government buildings. > This does not mean that the names of shops, restaurants have to be in > any of the above languages (just as the examples given by others for > Germany and Italy). More over, the names in Brussels will typically be > in either Dutch or French, depending on the mother tongue of the > owner. Schools and universities (e.g. VUB is a Dutch-speaking > university and ULB a french-speaking university in Brussels) are also > typically named in 1 language. As far as I can see, the current > proposals would mean that any POI (not referring to a government > building) in Brussels needs to be retagged to name:XX or add > default:language:XX. Is this a correct assumption ? > > Although I am not overly familiar with the Eupen-Malmedy area, I think > that a lot of POI names in that area are in French. > > Furthermore, the destination signs in Belgium can be a mixture of > Dutch/French/German, even for towns in France/Germany. Those signs are > often mapped with the destination-tag in OSM and announced by > navigation software. None of the proposed solutions here helps the > software to read those aloud. > > So I see a massive amount of work + a lot of work to maintain this. I > really do hope that the benefits are huge. And to be honest, I do not > have a lot of problems with the current navigation software based on > OSM without all those extra tags. > > (*) exceptions exist, there are towns with facilities, which means > citizens can demand to get official letters in another language > > m. > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 2:56 AM Joseph Eisenberg > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > While it is a good idea to address the issues around name=* and > name:<lg>=* tags, this proposal is a necessary first step before we can do > anything else. > > Frederik's perferred solution and Christoph's idea both require there to > be a default language format tag. > > > > I would recommend approving this proposal in some form first, then we > can have a separate discussion about the name tags. So I have removed a > couple of short comments from the proposal to avoid this confusion. > > > > Tags for official languages should also be a separate discussion (though > I also think this idea has merit). > > > > -Joseph > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:19 AM Christoph Hormann <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> On Wednesday 26 September 2018, Wolfgang Zenker wrote: > >> > > * allow mappers to accurately document information on names of > >> > > features in all situations that might exist world wide where there > >> > > are verifiable names with as little effort and in the least error > >> > > prone way as possible. > >> > > * allow data users to interpret this data without constraints due > >> > > to intransparent preprocessing performed by the mappers. > >> > > >> > I'm not sure that all the participants in this discussion and all the > >> > supporters of the draft proposal (and previous proposals) do really > >> > agree on the ultimate aim of that proposal. > >> > >> Yes, of course i should have mentioned that this is just my personal > >> opinion. I did not mean to imply to speak for anyone else. > >> > >> > Hence my suggestion to > >> > explore the problem space first and find out what problem(s) > >> > different people try to solve with that proposal, then identify the > >> > constraints that reduce the possible solutions space and the "nice to > >> > have" properties that we'ld like to see in the solution. > >> > >> Yes, you can try to systematically develop a solution after defining > >> requirements and quantifying priorities. But you need to keep in mind > >> that in OSM you have no centralized decision making process as you > >> usually have in engineering disciplines. So you would already have > >> trouble finding agreement on what exactly the problem is. And > >> experience tells that the solution space is typically much smaller than > >> the problem space when it comes to tagging in OSM. Long story short: > >> Finding consensus on the solution is often much easier than on the > >> problem. > >> > >> Still you are right, systematically collecting all the problems related > >> to name data recording in OSM would be quite useful - even if just from > >> a single person's perspective. But that is already quite a huge amount > >> of work. > >> > >> -- > >> Christoph Hormann > >> http://www.imagico.de/ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Tagging mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Tagging mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
