[Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

moltonel 3x Combo moltonel at gmail.com
Thu Mar 3 09:32:19 UTC 2016

On 03/03/2016, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Am 03.03.2016 um 03:57 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo <moltonel at gmail.com>:
>> The fact that we don't know wether the extra name is an old_name or a
>> loc_name or something else is independant of how the extra name was
>> taged. The information is equally lacking from name_1, name=x;y, and
>> alt_name. Do not shoot the name_1 messenger when it is just telling
>> you that the mapper didn't have nuanced information about which
>> context the extra name fits best in.
> didn't you say before, name_n was for equally valid names?

Yes. That's what I said here as well. Same is true for alt_name and name=x;y.

> How do you
> distinguish names that are confirmed to be equally valid and bearing the
> same semantics from names where they are possibly not but the mapper didn't
> know?

You can't just by looking at the osm data, you'd need to
survey/research the question. It's possible that further research
might show that the extra name should go in (for example) old_name,
but that's not a garantee.

I think that Hakuch was refering to some TIGER imports which used
name_1 too lightly (I even believe that sometimes the difference
between name variants is just that one is abbreviated and the other
isn't). Most people agree that this was a bad import.

But Hackuch is (correct me if I'm wrong) using this bad import as an
example to say that semicolons should be used instead of suffixes.
That's reasoning is flawed, because if the import had used semicolons
instead of suffixes, it'd have the exact same problem (plus the
previously mentioned problems of using semicolons for names).

More information about the Tagging mailing list