<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Thanks Kurt,<br>
<br>
Basically, what you write very nicely extends what I wrote.<br>
You use the unique English word "area" where I used "linguistic
region" as a translation of French "région linguistique" and after
that change of terminology, our texts agree mostly.<br>
Note that the proposed change is not a question of terminology but
a switch from community to area.<br>
A few remarks below between your lines.<br>
But...<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20131125223741.GA20143@roeckx.be"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">But now, *regarding Nominatim*:
</blockquote>
<br>
Please don't tag for the software, fix the software.
<br>
</blockquote>
Sorry I must disagree with this. First, "tagging for the renderer"
is making tagging mistakes. This not a matter of disregarding
rules here but of choices where no linguistic boundary rules
exist.<br>
We just can't say to Nominatim "nu trek je plan" if we don't tell
them or even don't know ourselves what we want or even if it's an
impossible thing to do for them or for us.<br>
<br>
Either Nominatim does or will follow the tree topologically and
then it must segregate the boundary types. Then we would have to
duplicate every object, at least all communities, in two disjoint
boundaries trees of political and administrative boundary type.
Pure joy!<br>
<br>
Or Nominatim will follow the subarea nesting and we will have to
care that all the object that we want to see will correctly nest
its children, making two provinces etc. if that's what we want<br>
<br>
But the bottom lines in both cases are:<br>
Which of the two trees will Nominatim use? And let us notice that
Nominatim is not the only one.<br>
Would just language "Gent, Gent Municipality, Dutch speaking area,
Belgium" make sense?<br>
Or would only administrative boundaries be used? What's the use
of political ones then?<br>
Or should we request that they used both trees?<br>
<br>
Could people accustomed to Nominatim look into that issue,
possibly with Nominatim?<br>
Most simple is to point them to this text and ask what they think.<br>
<br>
Hence my proposition to simply drop the language tree, use a
conventional administrative tree that will work like for most
countries but with language compliant additions to the names, for
example:<br>
Not Village Louveigné, Louveigné, Liège, French Community,
Wallonia, Belgium<br>
But Village Louveigné, Louveigné, Sprimont, Liège, Liège(?),
Wallonia (French speaking), Belgium<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>André.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
BTW, Please note Gent in Ghent in Gent.<br>
City <a class="set_position" data-id="897671"
data-lat="51.0558119" data-lon="3.7239194"
data-max-lat="51.1879463195801" data-max-lon="3.84927082061768"
data-min-lat="50.9766578674316" data-min-lon="3.57994079589844"
data-name="Ghent, Arrondissement Gent, East Flanders, Flemish
Region, 9000;9030;9031;9032;9040;9041;9042;9050;9051;9052,
Belgium" data-prefix="City" data-type="relation"
href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=3.57994079589844&minlat=50.9766578674316&maxlon=3.84927082061768&maxlat=51.1879463195801">Ghent,
Arrondissement Gent, East Flanders, Flemish Region,
9000;9030;9031;9032;9040;9041;9042;9050;9051;9052, Belgium</a><br>
City <a class="set_position" data-id="3132739"
data-lat="51.0790067" data-lon="3.73479947122434"
data-max-lat="51.1463890075684" data-max-lon="3.78616213798523"
data-min-lat="51.0116233825684" data-min-lon="3.67227983474731"
data-name="Gent, Ghent, Arrondissement Gent, East Flanders,
Flemish Region, 9000, Belgium" data-prefix="City"
data-type="relation"
href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=3.67227983474731&minlat=51.0116233825684&maxlon=3.78616213798523&maxlat=51.1463890075684">Gent,
Ghent, Arrondissement Gent, East Flanders, Flemish Region, 9000,
Belgium</a><br>
<br>
On 2013-11-25 23:37, Kurt Roeckx wrote :<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20131125223741.GA20143@roeckx.be" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 09:21:06PM +0100, André Pirard wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Let us use the correct words instead.
The constitution defines *3 linguistic communities* and *4 linguistic
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
So let's be clear about this.
- Article 2 defines 3 communities:
- Dutch-speaking Community, Vlaamse Gemeenschap, la
Communauté flamande, Flämische Gemeinschaft
- French-speaking, Franse Gemeenschap, la Communauté française,
Französische Gemeinschaft
- German-speaking Community, Duitstalige Gemeenschap, la
Communauté germanophone, Deutschsprachige Gemeinschaft
- Article 3 defines 3 regions:
- Flemish Region, Vlaamse Gewest, la Région flamande, Flämische
Region
- Walloon Region, Waalse Gewest, la Région wallonne, Wallonische
Region
- Brussels-Capital Region, Brusselse Gewest, la Région
bruxelloise, Brüsseler Region
- Article 4 defines 4 language areas:
- Dutch language area, Nederlandse taalgebied, la région de
langue néerlandaise, das niederländische Sprachgebiet
- Bilingual Brussels-Capital area, tweetalige gebied
Brussel-Hoofdstad, la région bilingue de Bruxelles-Capitale,
das zweisprachige Gebiet Brüssel-Hauptstadt
- French language area, Franse taalgebied, la région de langue
française, das französische Sprachgebiet
- German language area, Duitse taalgebied, a région de langue
allemande, das deutsche Sprachgebiet
All names copied from the constitution except for the English.
Note that for the Dutch text of the region it says "Brusselse
Gewest" but other parts of the constitution talk about "Brusselse
Hoofdstedelijke Gewest". The same is also the case in French
where it becomes "la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale", and German
where it becomes "der Region Brüssel-Hauptstadt". It's very
good that we have consitent names in the constitution.
Also see:
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communities,_regions_and_language_areas_of_Belgium">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communities,_regions_and_language_areas_of_Belgium</a>
Article 4 says that each municipality belongs to one of the
language areas.
Article 5 defines to which region (article 3) each province
belongs. Note that Brussels isn't part of any of the provinces,
and is it's own region.
Article 127 defines the Dutch-speaking community as covering the
Dutch language area plus the Bilingual Brussels-Capital area, and
the French-speaking community as covering the French language area
and Bilingual Brussels-Capital area. So the Bilingual
Brussels-Capital is covered by 2 communities.</pre>
</blockquote>
I think that the distinction should be noticed between "belongs" and
"covered"<br>
"belongs" meaning that a municipality/province is a part of an
area/region and<br>
"covered" meaning "governing the people in areas" and not defining
yet another third sort of territorial partitioning<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20131125223741.GA20143@roeckx.be" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The wiki
(<a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative</a>)
currently says to use:
- admin level 3, but boundary=political for communities
- admin level 4 for regions
- nothing about language areas
People have always been changing what it says without discussing
this on the list. I don't really care how it's mapped, as long
as we can agree on how to map it and then stop changing it.</pre>
</blockquote>
In fact, reviving the History of that page explains more or less
what is the present state.<br>
So, I wonder why it has been removed (or why the present map state
is so).<br>
But it's what you say.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20131125223741.GA20143@roeckx.be" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">So, in addition to correcting those wrong names:
* a Brussels bilingual region should be added, it should be inside
Belgium.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I assume that's area and not region. We don't seem to have
area's yet?</pre>
</blockquote>
Yes according to your new terminology<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20131125223741.GA20143@roeckx.be" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">For Brussels we have a:
city:
<a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2404020">http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2404020</a>
And a region:
<a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/54094">http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/54094</a>
Buth people seem to love to add the same ways to relations
instead of just using it as subarea.</pre>
</blockquote>
Please extend on this<br>
Are you saying that only municipalities (8 or 9) must have
borderlines?<br>
And that the upper levels could contain only the nested ones as
subareas and no outer/inner ways?<br>
That would logical and very interesting !!! The present method
would me masochism !!!<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20131125223741.GA20143@roeckx.be" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> * Brussels-Capital Region
<<a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/54094">http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/54094</a>> should be
removed from within French and Flemish speaking regions.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
If it's part of anything, it's part of the communities, not
the regions. And it's currently part of the communities.</pre>
</blockquote>
Not my opinion. I thought we agreed that no territory should be
inside a community.<br>
In fact that there is no community on the map.<br>
Either Brussels-Capital Region above must be its own area or it must
be inside one.<br>
And that area must be part of Belgium.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20131125223741.GA20143@roeckx.be" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> * there should be a hole in the Flemish region to put that
Brussels-Capital bilingual region into
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
There should be a hole in the language area (which we don't have)
and the region
(<a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/53134">http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/53134</a>), which seems
to be the case, </pre>
</blockquote>
yes I know<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20131125223741.GA20143@roeckx.be" type="cite">and
you can argue about the communitie
(<a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/53136">http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/53136</a>)</blockquote>
What I meant is that that there should be a whole in the <a
href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/53136">http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/53136</a>
community to be renamed linguistic region to be renamed area
according to your terms.<br>
<br>
Now if your non-masochist-subarea-only method could be used, Dutch
language area relation would only contain Flemish Region and its
hole as subarea, as per definition, wouldn't it?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20131125223741.GA20143@roeckx.be" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">But now, *regarding Nominatim*:
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Please don't tag for the software, fix the software.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>