Hi, On 02.08.2012 20:43, iONiX wrote:
1. Will be same decision made in other parts of the world, if similar problems will come up?
It depends, but the "on the ground rule" is often the best available compromise. (Another possible compromise is to say that no "name" tags are allowed at all in the region, which means that there will be no labels on openstreetmap.org - then every party is forced to use a different tile server that serves name:xx tags of their choice. We did that with Jerusalem once but people weren't happy.)
In general, DWG prefers to be not involved at all. If we have a community of grown-up and compassionate mappers who recognize that "the other side" has a point, and who sit together to find a solution that is acceptable to all, then that is certainly preferable.
2. Information on signs is more important and should be retained in OSM DB even if its proven to be wrong through legislation rulings?
I think that in cases where *no* conflict exists - i.e. a street is renamed from "A street" to "B street" and there is nobody who says "but all of us here locally still say A street" then it is acceptable to edit it EVEN IF the old name is still on a sign.
However, if the edit has even the slightest cultural component - for example, central government resolves that street name should be B but local people still use A - then the renaming has to wait until central government actually puts up a sign.
We showed examples in forum, why it is not that simple to follow "truth on the ground" rule in ukraine. Here are some examples from me:
Yes, it is not simple. The simplest solution would be to say that all names in the Crimea shold be in Russian, or all names should be in Ukrainian - the two extreme positions that led to the edit war.
Do you have a better *compromise* solution, or are you arguing for one of the extreme positions? If you have a better *compromise* solution, get the buy in from all involved parties and DWG won't stand in your way when you execute it.
It seems, this sign ( http://maps.yandex.ru/?ll=33.514916%2C44.585732&spn=1.290894%2C0.209039&z=10&l=map%2Cstv&ol=stv&oll=33.51491593%2C44.58573223&oid=&ost=dir%3A232.7167932632227%2C-2.0492579426501294~spn%3A53.227793344151856%2C22.314288181632726 ) does not have status part. In both languages name of the street is "Кожанова", but status part in ukrainian would be "вулиця" in russian "улица". Should status part be removed from street name completely?
Yes, because as soon as you "invent" this status part, you will offend someone, no matter whether you choose the Ukrainian or the Russian version of the status part.
What when street is renamed and you want to send a letter, or some poi is located there and have its official address with new name, but old signs are still installed (for months or years). Do You really still want to rely on those old signs on the street?
I belive that in this case, all involved mappers would be happy when the street is renamed, no edit war would ensue, and DWG would happily accept this "violation" of the rule.
Do I have now permission from DWG to go and change all name tags on streets that have belarusian signs?
If there are any streets with Belarusian signs in the Crimea, then you're welcome to change them.
I do not want to change name tags to ukrainian language in Crimea for now, but it is not an acceptable solution from DWG we now have to respect.
Given that the extreme solutions "all names in Russian" and "all names in Ukrainian" are not acceptable either, what would you suggest?
Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
