[OSM-talk] Update: Advice needed - dispute regarding names in Cyprus
jon at siliconcircus.com
Mon Nov 12 10:08:19 GMT 2007
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
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.
Silicon Circus Ltd.
More information about the talk