Hi,
David Janda wrote:
>
> I have been using, for example:
>
> name=Ozanköy
> name:el=Kazaphani
> name:tr=Ozanköy
> name:en=Ozankoy
> old_name=Kazaphani
> place=village
> is_in=Cyprus
How about
name=Kazaphani/Ozanköy
name:el=Kazaphani
name:tr=Ozanköy
name:en=Ozankoy
name:old=Kazaphani
name:disputed=Ozanköy
name:recognized=Kazaphani
name:signpost=Ozanköy
Putting all this information is of course a pain. And I don't know if
it would be sufficient to satisfy user_7363, who strikes me as...
somewhat hung up about the issue. But the name tag is clear that there
are two different names (and puts the internationally-accepted one
first), the names can be looked up correctly by software producing maps
for Turkish or Greek consumption, the status of the two names is clear
and routing software can look up name:signpost to provide directions (or
just use name, which will probably be sufficient for most).
For borders, I'd suggest border:status=disputed or similar. In the case
of borders where two different nations/entities have different positions
for the border (not the case here, I think - one side just plain says
the border doesn't exist, the other says it does?), I'd suggest entering
both, both with :status=disputed and both with :according_to=in/pk (or
whatever - this example would be for Kashmir).
Basically, aim for documenting the situation without taking any position
on it.
--
Jon
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
