On 08/09/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote: >> Am 08.09.2015 um 14:46 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <[email protected]>: >> But I would not add old_name that is currently completely unused. > > there's one area where old names will be used for sure: old documents, > books, film, signs, ... > > There is no such thing like a currently completely unused old name, > otherwise it wouldn't be an old name. > Or maybe I don't understand "currently". Everything I may encounter now?
If you go that route, there's no limit to how far back an old name can go. That'd mean that we should add, for example, all of [Dublin's old names][1] to the osm object, since they are well documented. It would be a silly thing to do, as these names definitely are not a current property of Dublin. IMHO the cuting point should be that the name is used by a living person, with "used" defined as "when he thinks (out of some document context) about that place, he (at least sometimes) thinks of it using that name". It sounds really convoluted when you try a formal definition, but I hope the ide is clear ? If some joking friend offers to meet me in "Lutèce" I'll know in which city to go, but I certainly don't expect OSM to know. [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin#Toponymy _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
