Of these two, “designation=*” is the best option, because it would be the same key in all countries.<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 6:50 PM Eugene Podshivalov <<a href="mailto:yaugenka@gmail.com">yaugenka@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I assume that the aforementioned issue with the official classification of settlement being deferent from the place tags values is faced in many countries.<div>So some common approach is needed here. There were many solutioned listed above, but it seems that only the following two are suitable for defining the local classification:</div><div>1. in the respective category tag appended with language code, e..g. "place:RU="</div><div>2. in the "designation" tag</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 07:32, Michael Patrick <<a href="mailto:geodesy99@gmail.com" target="_blank">geodesy99@gmail.com</a>>:<br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
you are right that there are dictionaries about this stuff, but you will have to have a basic idea in order to make use of them, particularly if English is not your native language, you might look up terms that you are familiar with, and might not be aware that you are missing another relevant term, or that the term is not a translation with more or less the same meaning but only loosely connected.<br></blockquote></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Trade in goods and services is international - most countries publish their classifications in their official language(s) and script. I looked looked at Mozambique at random, it's 520 pages of similar tables as the ISCO. The one that don't publish their own probably default to the ISOC standard, or like North Korea, don't play well with others.<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">(Sample extract ... some of the fonts for the Asian languages didn't copy properly)<br></div><div style="margin-left:40px">Ireland - CSO Standard Employment Status Classification<br>Israel - (SCO) די יחלשמ לש דיחאה גוויסה<br>Italy - Classificazione delle professioni (CP 2011)<br>Jamaica - Jamaica Standard Occupational Classification (JSOC 1991)<br>Japan - (JSOC) <br>Korea, Republic of - <br>Latvia - Profesiju klasifikators (PK)<br>Lithuania - Lietuvos profesijų klasifikatorius (LPK)<br>Malaysia - Malaysia Standard Classification of Occupations (MASCO 2008)<br>Maldives - International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO)<br>Mauritius - National Standard Classification of Occupations (NASCO-08)<br>Micronesia, Federated States of - International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO)<br>Mozambique - Classificação das Profissões de Moçambique revisão 2 (CPM Rev2)<br>Nauru - International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO)<br>Netherlands - Standaard Beroepenclassificatie 1992 (SBC 1992)<br>New Zealand - Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO)<br>Norway - Standard for yrkesklassifisering (STYRK-08)<br>Palestine - (PSCO) ل د ط ا ير ا ا ف<br>Panama - Clasificación Nacional de Ocupaciones (CNO 2010)<br>Paraguay - Clasificación Paraguaya de Ocupaciones (CPO)<br>Philippines - 2011 Philippine Standard Occupational Classification (PSOC)<br>Poland - Klasyfikacja zawodów i specjalności na potrzeby rynku pracy (KZiS)<br>Portugal - Classificação Portuguesa das Profissões (CPP/2010)<br>Qatar - Occupations<br>Romania - Clasificarea Ocupatiilor din Romania (COR)<br>Russian Federation - Общероссийский классификатор занятий (ОКЗ), Общероссийский классификатор профессий рабочих, должностей служащих и тарифных разрядов (ОКПДТР)<br>Sao Tome and Principe - Classicação das Profissões (CNP)<br>Serbia - Jedinstvena nomenklatura zanimanj / Klasifikacija zanimanja (JNZ / KZ)<br>Singapore - Singapore Standard Occupational Classification (SSOC 2010)<br>Slovakia - Štatistická klasifikácia zamestnaní (ISCO-08)<br>Spain - Clasificación Nacional de Ocupaciones (CNO-11)<br>Suriname - International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-08)<br>Sweden - Standard för svensk yrkesklassificering (SSYK)<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Language is reflecting reality, and if the way construction work is organized is different in different countries, also the terms describing the workers will not be matchable.<br></blockquote></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Yes, there are similarities and differences. The Japanese top-level categories make a clear distinction between the wooden structure and other structures that I guessed at in my previous post. But it is visible there. The sub-items are what provide the ability to match. That is why there are 'crosswalks', a means like a document or table describing a mechanism or approach to translating, comparing or moving between standards, converting skills or content from one discipline to another. If you don't want to use the local one, there is an <a href="http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/" target="_blank">international one</a>, and eventually someone can reconcile the local one. <br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Additionally we are not going to add every single term that describes a profession as a tag, because there are synonyms and overlap. We usually try to create (not too) coarse classes/groups and use subtags to distinguish minor differences. <br></blockquote></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Classification schemes are always a <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/goldilocks" target="_blank">Goldilocks Problem</a> - if it is too simple, it will grow awkwardly as it encounters edge cases and exceptions, it it is too complex, it will be ignored or even worse applied incorrectly. Usually you will see only three levels, and maybe a sparse fourth. The 'not too' qualifier mentioned is the issue. The trick is to define the hierarchy, and then assign the term to the proper level in the hierarchy. I would submit that domain experts coming to agreement worldwide over decades have had a better opportunity to refine these aspects than any small set of individuals in separate language communities ( for all I know, the Germans may have already solved this ). <br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
FWIW, with regard to dictionaries, in the case of the misleading roofer description, it was copied exactly from the English wikipedia article on roofers, which is in itself not consistent there (mixes carpentry and roofing in the article).</blockquote></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">My text was <i>not</i> copied from Wikipedia - I only work from original authoritative source documents, in this case the U.S. Department of Labor, and the example I gave was an <i>extract</i> of an <i>intermediate</i> level, at the 'leaf' level ( <a href="https://www.onetonline.org/link/details/47-2181.00" target="_blank">click on the Details tab</a> ) it goes down to the specific tools used: ... i.e.
<b>Hoists</b> — Hydraulic swing beam hoists; Power hoists; Shingle ladder hoists; Trolley track hoist". Of course Wikipedia might be inconsistent, I occasionally use a Wikipedia reference if accurately gives a more general description than a more precise technical document. <br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">That is a fairly extreme hierarchy, but needed for it's intended use - supporting crosswalks.<br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Employment-->Industry (Construction)-->Occupation ( Roofers)-->Details (Tools)-->Hoists ( Power, Swing, Trolley, etc.) ... most of the utility for ordinary people is in the top three levels.If I was asked to send a wood building 'roofer' to Japan, I will send a Log Peeler / Tile Setter instead, based on the tools and materials. <br></div><div class="gmail_quote"></div><div class="gmail_quote">
<div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Additionally we are not going to add every single term that describes a
profession as a tag, because there are synonyms and overlap. <br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There is no need for that. In my work with cross-national data, I reference the source hierarchy (and crosswalk if needed if I am integrating to someone else's work), fill in the two top levels, then add mine at the appropriate level. On the rare occasion, if there is a significant difference, I will invoke the fourth level - the next person using my classification then is automatically alerted why I used the wildly unexpected 'bark peeler' instead of 'roofer', I don't list <i>all</i> the tools and materials, just the two <i>categories</i> that made the distinction. If it is critical I might put the specific tool name.( 5th level ). <br></div><div><br></div><div>It is actually beneficial not to add everything. Over time, the entries actually in the data can be scanned and <a href="https://www.education.com/science-fair/article/dichotomous-key/" target="_blank">dichotomous keys</a> created, where by asking a set of yes/no questions, one can get to an already used entry. I've seen school children get to exact species identification doing this, with no knowledge of the classification system itself. So things actually become easier for new users in the beginning. <br></div><div><br></div><div>There seems to be some sort of perception that standard classifications discourage diversity, but the opposite is true. As new concepts appear, they can be preserved and not force fit to the existing biases of previous categories - because there is a way to do that without disturbing the bulk of the existing base. <br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div>
</div><div class="gmail_quote">Michael Patrick<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div>