Update: Advice needed - dispute regarding names in Cyprus

[David Janda]

Hello list

Further to advice given on the list with regard to the above subject, I
wrote to user_7363 with regard to deleting name: tags. The essence of which
was that OSM is used as a navigation tool, and the current names are on
maps, not the Greek ones of 30 years ago. Also that politics should be
avoided on a project such as OSM.

Today, I have received a reply, text follows:

-----------
From user_7363
Subject Reply
Date Sun Nov 11 15:24:14 +0000 2007
 I am afraid the names you have been using are those of the illegal regime
calling itself the 'TRNC' (which in fact has systematically pursued such a
policy of wiping out the original names - but that is another discussion).
What matters is that you are labelling the various locations with names
which are not recognised as the legal ones under international law. As such
I will continue reverting them back to their (internationally legal)
originals. The fact that satnav companies are doing the same is of no
relevance
-------------

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

This is not acceptable to user_7363 and as a navigational aid, his behaviour
is rendering the project in northern Cyprus pointless.

I ask for further advice and adjudication.

djanda



_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[Abigail Brady-2]

On Nov 11, 2007 4:27 PM, David Janda <dj@...> wrote:

This is not acceptable to user_7363 and as a navigational aid, his behaviour
is rendering the project in northern Cyprus pointless.

You've tried to reason with them, but this user is clearly displaying an attitude that they are using openstreetmap to push a political agenda.  We should take a strong line against any such person who is deliberately deleting material for political purposes - whether they are deleting names from disputed towns - or hypothetically, whether they are deleting entire disputed borders.

--
Abi

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[Hakan Tandogan]

David Janda wrote:

> Hello list
>
> Further to advice given on the list with regard to the above subject, I
> wrote to user_7363 with regard to deleting name: tags. The essence of which
> was that OSM is used as a navigation tool, and the current names are on
> maps, not the Greek ones of 30 years ago. Also that politics should be
> avoided on a project such as OSM.
>
> Today, I have received a reply, text follows:
>
> -----------
>>From user_7363
> Subject Reply
> Date Sun Nov 11 15:24:14 +0000 2007
>  I am afraid the names you have been using are those of the illegal regime
> calling itself the 'TRNC' (which in fact has systematically pursued such a
> policy of wiping out the original names - but that is another discussion).
> What matters is that you are labelling the various locations with names
> which are not recognised as the legal ones under international law. As such
> I will continue reverting them back to their (internationally legal)
> originals. The fact that satnav companies are doing the same is of no
> relevance
> -------------

Nice. Real nice. You know, that's the kind of person that would have
deleted data / defaced maps even if the UN came to a resolution that the
"new" names are internationally recognized, or even created a completely
new name to stop those disputes :-(

How I hate politics...

I would have said to leave that person alone until he or she simply
loses interest in OSM and goes elsewhere, you can change the names in a
few weeks / months.

Do we already need "immutable" nodes?

> 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

This is quite an comprehensive collection of data. You even used the
english name for is_in, that should have been enough to make that other
guy happy...

> This is not acceptable to user_7363 and as a navigational aid, his behaviour
> is rendering the project in northern Cyprus pointless.
>
> I ask for further advice and adjudication.

--
The Key To Immortality Is First Living A Life Worth Remembering.

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[Hakan Tandogan]

Abigail Brady wrote:

> On Nov 11, 2007 4:27 PM, David Janda <dj@...
> <mailto:dj@...>> wrote:
>
>     This is not acceptable to user_7363 and as a navigational aid, his
>     behaviour
>     is rendering the project in northern Cyprus pointless.
>
>
> You've tried to reason with them, but this user is clearly displaying an
> attitude that they are using openstreetmap to push a political agenda.  
> We should take a strong line against any such person who is deliberately
> deleting material for political purposes - whether they are deleting
> names from disputed towns - or hypothetically, whether they are deleting
> entire disputed borders.

Yes, but how? You can't simply block the account, that user will simply
create a new one and continue his "work" . What's worse, maybe next time
he will start deleting the border around Ozanköy just for the hell of
it. You can imagine how heated political disputes can become...

One thing to hope for is that user_7363 is simply an adolescent with too
much time on his hands and that one of those days, he'll discover girls
and simply go elsewhere.

The worst case I can imagine is that this guy is a public worker (again,
with too much free time on his hands) and continues to pester David
until he gives up and OSM loses another valuable mapper in a disputed area.


Regards,
Hakan


--
The Key To Immortality Is First Living A Life Worth Remembering.

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[Jon Bright]

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

[Paul Fox-3]

hi -- OSM newbie here.

isn't the real issue that there's really no "fundamental truth"
with regard to geographic placenames, and even borders?

does osm have the ability to present multiple views of the
database, for a given region?  rather than try and put all the
(variant, disputed) data in one place, perhaps the data should be
(effectively) put in two (or more) places/views, and when such a
region is requested, the user should be forced to choose which
view of the region they wish to see.

realistically, this current issue in cyprus is just the first of
what will probably be many conflicts over naming and political
geography.  if osm can't handle such disputes (which have been
going on for as long as mankind has been making maps), perhaps
osm needs to adapt.

paul
=---------------------
 paul fox, pgf@... (arlington, ma, where it's 36.7 degrees)

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[Lauri Hahne]

On 11/11/2007, Abigail Brady <morwen@...> wrote:
> You've tried to reason with them, but this user is clearly displaying an
> attitude that they are using openstreetmap to push a political agenda.  We
> should take a strong line against any such person who is deliberately
> deleting material for political purposes - whether they are deleting names
> from disputed towns - or hypothetically, whether they are deleting entire

I think it's a mistake to claim all this kind of activity to zeal.
Most of people living in or near disputed areas have been told all
their live to use certain names and been told some reasons for it
(like the "legality" argument) and also been told to defend their
stance. They fail to see nothing wrong in their doing and even think
that the other side must be zealot because he/she just can't get the
"facts". Because these are far too important issues to blame just on
zeal, I think that no account should be suspended solely because of
actions like this unless the account is mainly used to this kind of
actions.

And to counter things like this, I think OSM should make a statement
like "OSM reflects the world as it is perceived by a person on ground
at the very location. We only use data available on site and PD maps
corrected to reflect the contemporary situation."

--
Lauri Hahne

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[Abigail Brady-2]

On Nov 11, 2007 5:51 PM, Paul Fox <pgf@...> wrote:

does osm have the ability to present multiple views of the
database, for a given region?  rather than try and put all the
(variant, disputed) data in one place, perhaps the data should be
(effectively) put in two (or more) places/views, and when such a
region is requested, the user should be forced to choose which
view of the region they wish to see.

This is all very nice, but what happens when the user then deletes all the Turkish names from the Turkish views as well?  We can perhaps try to explain our reasoning as to why openstreetmap does not get involved in petty political disputes over borders and try to persuade them that way, and banning is going to be sufficiently difficult that this is worth investing effort into.

But if we get people a tenth as insane as edit Wikipedia articles for political purposes, reason isn't going to work.

--
Abi

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[David Janda]

----
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
------

Thanks for that, I will give it a go for my village first, and see what
happens.

A couple of points if I may, which I think are relevant.

1) The names in northern Cyprus ARE recognised; the state itself is not. Get
a flight here and at Stanstead or wherever it will say Ercan, which is the
village where the airport is, and Ercan is the Turkish name.

2) Is name:old not the same as old_name: ???

djanda






_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[Jon Bright]

Hi,

David Janda wrote:
>
> 1) The names in northern Cyprus ARE recognised; the state itself is not. Get
> a flight here and at Stanstead or wherever it will say Ercan, which is the
> village where the airport is, and Ercan is the Turkish name.

Hmmm.  I'm not sure recognition by RyanAir is the same as recognition by
the UN :-)  To avoid various kinds of "recognized by whom?" disputes,
maybe name:unitednations or something.  Maybe also name:icao assuming
that's the name they use.  Again, trying to document the various
opinions on the matter rather than trying to decide between them.

> 2) Is name:old not the same as old_name: ???

I changed this because it struck me that old_name was something of an
inconsistency.  I don't know what Map Features has to say.  It seems to
me that anything which isn't two letters (or two letters <underscore>
two letters, e.g. en_GB) can be used as a colon suffix for name.
name:old therefore seemed more consistent to me than old_name.  But, in
happy contrast to user_7363, I'm flexible on this and most other points :-)

--
Jon


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[Richard Fairhurst]

Jon Bright wrote:

> David Janda wrote:
>>
>> 1) The names in northern Cyprus ARE recognised; the state itself  
>> is not. Get
>> a flight here and at Stanstead or wherever it will say Ercan,  
>> which is the
>> village where the airport is, and Ercan is the Turkish name.
>
> Hmmm.  I'm not sure recognition by RyanAir is the same as  
> recognition by
> the UN :-)

AFAIK the only airline that flies from Western Europe to Northern  
Cyprus is KTHY, i.e. the Northern Cypriot airline.

If you take a flight from Stansted to Northern Cyprus, it's actually  
billed at Stansted as "Izmir" - the airport in Turkey. The aeroplane  
touches down at Izmir, stays there for half an hour, then continues  
on to Ercan. But it doesn't say Ercan at Stansted, unless things have  
changed in the last year.

I post merely for information - personally I think the Turkish  
Cypriots get a raw deal and there's a week worth of my tracks from  
the TRNC in the db. :)

cheers
Richard

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[Paul Fox-3]

abigail wrote:
 > On Nov 11, 2007 5:51 PM, Paul Fox <pgf@...> wrote:
 >
 > > does osm have the ability to present multiple views of the
 > > database, for a given region?  rather than try and put all the
 > > (variant, disputed) data in one place, perhaps the data should be
 > > (effectively) put in two (or more) places/views, and when such a
 > > region is requested, the user should be forced to choose which
 > > view of the region they wish to see.
 > >
 >
 > This is all very nice, but what happens when the user then deletes all the
 > Turkish names from the Turkish views as well?  We can perhaps try to explain
 > our reasoning as to why openstreetmap does not get involved in petty
 > political disputes over borders and try to persuade them that way, and

i suspect using the term "petty" might not be the best way to make
the point, however. ;-)  this dispute (and others like it) are highly
charged, emotionally.

you're right, of course, that the multiple view mechanism is also
prone to being disrupted.  it was just a thought.  i suspect that the
wiki-like "nothing ever gets deleted, only edited" mechanism may also
be important, but i have no idea how that could be made to work in a
system like OSM.

paul
=---------------------
 paul fox, pgf@... (arlington, ma, where it's 38.1 degrees)

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[Abigail Brady-2]

On Nov 11, 2007 6:30 PM, Jon Bright <jon@...> wrote:

I changed this because it struck me that old_name was something of an
inconsistency.  I don't know what Map Features has to say.  It seems to
me that anything which isn't two letters (or two letters <underscore>
two letters, e.g. en_GB) can be used as a colon suffix for name.
name:old therefore seemed more consistent to me than old_name.  But, in
happy contrast to user_7363, I'm flexible on this and most other points :-)

I'd advise against using name:old.  After all, what happens when you want to tag the placename in the language Mochi (language tag 'old')? :)

--
Abi

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[Jon Bright]

Abigail Brady wrote:
>
> I'd advise against using name:old.  After all, what happens when you
> want to tag the placename in the language Mochi (language tag 'old')? :)

...and there was me thinking that ISO 639 only defined two-char codes.
Oh well.  In that case, and assuming that OSMers plan to use 639-3
codes, name:old is indeed a poor choice and old_name seems the better
alternative.

--
Jon

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[Mikel Maron]

Lauri Hahne said it well...



> I think it's a mistake to claim all this kind of activity to zeal.
> Most of people living in or near disputed areas have been told all

> their live to use certain names and been told some reasons for it

> (like the "legality" argument) and also been told to defend their

> stance. They fail to see nothing wrong in their doing and even think

> that the other side must be zealot because he/she just can't get the

> "facts". Because these are far too important issues to blame just on
> zeal, I think that no account should be suspended solely because of

> actions like this unless the account is mainly used to this kind of

> actions.


We need to understand what's motivating people. A map is more than just a map .. it's a representation of reality.
Maps have been used throughout history to lay territorial and economic claims -- they are primarily a tool of economics and politics.
 And as map makers we're going to need to engage with these issues.

OSM is a break with the past. There is the possibility to somehow represent all points of view.
Creation of the map is open - "power" is within all contributors, and we need to manage that responsibility.

> And to counter things like this, I think OSM should make a statement

> like "OSM reflects the world as it is perceived by a person on ground

> at the very location. We only use data available on site and PD maps

> corrected to reflect the contemporary situation."


I support some kind of statement of the "OSM Way". Primarily I'd start with the importance of dialogue --
 if there's dispute over a place, then there must be discussion, not back and forth editing within the map.
There may need to be some mechanisms to support that.

As far as what should be rendered in the "official" view, I think there are three options.


* Display All

or as Jon Bright said "Basically, aim for documenting the situation without taking any
 position on it."
This means documenting all variations. And in the rendered view, listing all the disputed names.
For Cyprus this could work, since there are two. Not sure it scales to every disputed place.


* Different Views


Paul Fox said ..

> does osm have the ability to present multiple views of the
> database, for a given region?  rather than try and put all the
> (variant, disputed) data in one place, perhaps the data should be
> (effectively) put in two (or more) places/views, and when such a
> region is requested, the user should be forced to choose which
> view of the region they wish to see.


* What's Navigable


This is the easiest technically. And is the most rational. And a clear cut rule.
Whether it would satisfy disputed areas, where more than reason is at stake, is unclear.


Bans and restrictions are really the last result. Not clear it will work.

- Mikel






_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

> OSM is a break with the past. There is the possibility to somehow
> represent all points of view.  Creation of the map is open - "power"
> is within all contributors, and we need to manage that
> responsibility.

I think we might (somehow, in the distant future) formalize an
individual's (or a group of individuals') right to their version.

Just as the license aims so make sure that anything is possible
*except* "taking something away", edits that take something away which
someone else has deliberately put there might be restricted somehow.

I'm thinkin something like this: If I put a number of tags on a way, I
will normally not mark them specially, so anyone can delete them. But
I might also mark them "persistent in data set fred1234", in which
case only people with special editing power for dataset fred1234 will
be able to edit or remove these.

Creation and management of datasets would be available for anyone
(think IRC channels - the one who opens one automatically becomes the
boss and may give that right to others).

Whenever you access the map, you can specify which datasets you want
to include.

For a conflict like the one we currently have, this would mean that
there would be two datasets, one Greek and one Turkish, both only
editable by a few select people, and there would be the map renderer
config which would contain info about which data sets to use.

Because, after all, the decision needs to lie with the renderer (or
other user) and not with the mapper - what we currently see is mappers
trying to force their world view onto the renderer (or user), instead
of allowing him to chose; this is wrong.

> or as Jon Bright said "Basically, aim for documenting the situation
> without taking any position on it."

However, documenting a different view is already seen as taking a
position by some parties involved.

> Bans and restrictions are really the last result. Not clear it will
> work.

It would be relatively easy to put blanket "area locks" in the API so
that nobody (or only select accounts) may edit within the area. In the
context of changesets/rollback and so on, we might also be able to
introduce a "moderated" mode for some changes, i.e. when there's
an area lock, edits are put into a queue for review. (This review
could again be peer-based, i.e. you need a quorum of people approving
it or so... open to abuse probably.)

Locking disputed articles is what Wikipedia does, in the hope of the
situation cooling down; but sometimes it seems that articles stay
locked forever which is a bit undesirable.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik@...  ##  N49°00.09' E008°23.33'


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[tim waters "chippy"]

In search of an "official" way that the UN approaches this, i found
that very recently, August 2007, there was a UN conference -  United
Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names.

at that conference, Turkey presented a technical paper on
"Representation of Geo-Political Disputes in Geo-Names Supported
Information Systems"

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/9th-UNCSGN-Docs/E-CONF-98-30-Add1.pdf

They give three options in case of a "bi-lateral dispute":
 a) showing both datasets, useful where coverage is unknown b)
providing one, and keeping the other linked to and c) discarding the
other and going for just one of them.

They are saying that because of modern technology, that b) is probably
best, in other words, allowing two views to coexist....


- Tim


On Nov 11, 2007 10:41 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik@...> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > OSM is a break with the past. There is the possibility to somehow
> > represent all points of view.  Creation of the map is open - "power"
> > is within all contributors, and we need to manage that
> > responsibility.
>
> I think we might (somehow, in the distant future) formalize an
> individual's (or a group of individuals') right to their version.
>
> Just as the license aims so make sure that anything is possible
> *except* "taking something away", edits that take something away which
> someone else has deliberately put there might be restricted somehow.
>
> I'm thinkin something like this: If I put a number of tags on a way, I
> will normally not mark them specially, so anyone can delete them. But
> I might also mark them "persistent in data set fred1234", in which
> case only people with special editing power for dataset fred1234 will
> be able to edit or remove these.
>
> Creation and management of datasets would be available for anyone
> (think IRC channels - the one who opens one automatically becomes the
> boss and may give that right to others).
>
> Whenever you access the map, you can specify which datasets you want
> to include.
>
> For a conflict like the one we currently have, this would mean that
> there would be two datasets, one Greek and one Turkish, both only
> editable by a few select people, and there would be the map renderer
> config which would contain info about which data sets to use.
>
> Because, after all, the decision needs to lie with the renderer (or
> other user) and not with the mapper - what we currently see is mappers
> trying to force their world view onto the renderer (or user), instead
> of allowing him to chose; this is wrong.
>
> > or as Jon Bright said "Basically, aim for documenting the situation
> > without taking any position on it."
>
> However, documenting a different view is already seen as taking a
> position by some parties involved.
>
> > Bans and restrictions are really the last result. Not clear it will
> > work.
>
> It would be relatively easy to put blanket "area locks" in the API so
> that nobody (or only select accounts) may edit within the area. In the
> context of changesets/rollback and so on, we might also be able to
> introduce a "moderated" mode for some changes, i.e. when there's
> an area lock, edits are put into a queue for review. (This review
> could again be peer-based, i.e. you need a quorum of people approving
> it or so... open to abuse probably.)
>
> Locking disputed articles is what Wikipedia does, in the hope of the
> situation cooling down; but sometimes it seems that articles stay
> locked forever which is a bit undesirable.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik@...  ##  N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk@...
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[Gregory Marler]

Let's just think and not be quick to go against the other user because they're not on the mailing list and they're using potlatch raher than JOSM (nothing against potlatch, but it seems to be used by most casual editors/those not engaged with discussion/those that quickly want to change something they don't like, aswell as other mappers).
I know when I started to read this conversation as it begun I was quick to mentally take the side of the original poster because they were on the mailing list and the other user was unknown/uncontacted.


Now all the data has been put in with the various tags name:el, old_name etc. But the main point, and the one that the changer/deleter is interested in, is of course the tag that shows up on all maps showing a name. The name=.

So I would say the first course of action is to tag name=Kazaphani/Ozanköy, so both names are visible. Both parties should be explained that this is best comprimise OSM can offer so a user looking for either can find the place.
Next we need to ask: are there any programmers out there that have nothing better to do and could help on a feature 'you have entered an area with multiple names, please choose (an option for both would be good)' on the "offical" map(s). Do we have a dev wish list? Could this be added to it fairly high up.

I like Fredrik's suggestion of the first person get's rights and grants them. I would have this turned off as default on my stuff, but if/when an area became sensitive it would be good to flick it on. (the first person to of mapped may of gone, so would the first to lock be in power - in which case the feature shouldn't be incredibly obvious). Can we add this to the dev wish list please.

Obviously the revisions/reverting is high up on the dev wish list.
If the wish list is only a mental list, I could create a page in the wiki. It would also be a bit like a roadmap, or at least make it easy to make one.

--
Gregory
nomoregrapes@...
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[Nic Roets-3]

> So I would say the first course of action is to tag name=Kazaphani/Ozanköy,
> so both names are visible.

I'm no expert on the specific case, but I know there are many cases
where cities have been conquered by invaders and the names have been
changed. Surely we can't label them all with Old name / New name or
New name / Old name.

I am not in favour of violence. I'm glad that history books usually
records any atrocities that are associated with the event and the
invader is often experiences economic meltdown.

OSM is a navigational aid rather than a history book. We must reflect
the names on the names on the signposts and on the letterheads.

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

[Jon Bright]

Hi,

Nic Roets wrote:
>> So I would say the first course of action is to tag name=Kazaphani/Ozanköy,
>> so both names are visible.
>
> I'm no expert on the specific case, but I know there are many cases
> where cities have been conquered by invaders and the names have been
> changed. Surely we can't label them all with Old name / New name or
> New name / Old name.

Well, I'd argue that it's worthwhile to document them - but if it's not
a matter of dispute about what the current name is, then the name tag is
not the place for that documentation.  To give an example, I'd suggest

name=Córdoba
name:en=Cordoba
name:es=Córdoba
name:ar=قرطبة
old_name=قرطبة

That the city currently goes by its Spanish name is not (as far as I'm
aware) the matter of any dispute.  The name tag therefore reflects the
current accepted name.  Other tags document its name in other languages
and that its name has changed.

In the case of the names of the villages in northern Cyprus, there
evidently is a dispute (or we wouldn't be having this thread).  To avoid
one side of that dispute feeling that they're being preferred over the
other side, we should (imho) use both names in the name tag.

> OSM is a navigational aid rather than a history book. We must reflect
> the names on the names on the signposts and on the letterheads.

Who says it's just a navigational aid?  Navigation is my primary desire
for the data.  Other people may want the data for illustrating academic
articles.  In discussion with a friend, we recently had the idea of
integrating the data into a racing game so that you can race around
actual streets.  There are a panoply of potential uses for the OSM data,
not all of which are going to want just the signpost language or name.

--
Jon Bright
Silicon Circus Ltd.
http://www.siliconcircus.com

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk