On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:59 AM Tom Pfeifer <[email protected]> wrote: > I am against transforming OSM into an etymological dictionary. While > etymological research is of > course valuable, such results are not easily verifiable for other users, and > overload the tagging of > objects that have plenty of tags in current languages already.
I think we have different readings of the original complaint. To me, the issue appears to be rather that an armchair mapper paraphrases an official name that contains a no-longer-current word, yielding a result that doesn't match the signs. If that's actually what's going on, then it's Just Plain Wrong. I think the poster wants a way to flag, 'the archaeism is still in current use - do not paraphrase' as a quality assurance measure, and if so, I'm all in favour. For situations that I've thought to be at risk of being corrupted by armchair mappers or bots with bad assumptions, (e.g., "Gravel Road" where "Gravel" is a family name, or a private road actually named "Four Wheel Drive"), I've simply resorted to a note=* to warn mappers. (note="The 'Vly' in 'Vly Road' is a Middle Dutch word, not an abbreviation of 'valley' - do not expand"). The other parallel situation I can think of near me is 'Lake George', which in French can be either 'Lac George[s]' - a translation of the current name, or 'Lac du Saint-Sacrement' (which is the name that the French settlers gave it before the English conquered them). I've seen all three spellings on maps, and 'Lac Georges' is the only one I haven't seen on bilingual signage. Tagging old_name:fr="Lac du Saint-Sacrement" pretty well covers that situation. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
