[Tagging] Can OSM become a geospacial database?
joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Fri Dec 7 11:37:22 UTC 2018
Of these two, “designation=*” is the best option, because it would be the
same key in all countries.
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 6:50 PM Eugene Podshivalov <yaugenka at gmail.com>
> I assume that the aforementioned issue with the official classification of
> settlement being deferent from the place tags values is faced in many
> 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:
> 1. in the respective category tag appended with language code, e..g.
> 2. in the "designation" tag
> пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 07:32, Michael Patrick <geodesy99 at gmail.com>:
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> (Sample extract ... some of the fonts for the Asian languages didn't copy
>> Ireland - CSO Standard Employment Status Classification
>> Israel - (SCO) די יחלשמ לש דיחאה גוויסה
>> Italy - Classificazione delle professioni (CP 2011)
>> Jamaica - Jamaica Standard Occupational Classification (JSOC 1991)
>> Japan - (JSOC)
>> Korea, Republic of -
>> Latvia - Profesiju klasifikators (PK)
>> Lithuania - Lietuvos profesijų klasifikatorius (LPK)
>> Malaysia - Malaysia Standard Classification of Occupations (MASCO 2008)
>> Maldives - International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO)
>> Mauritius - National Standard Classification of Occupations (NASCO-08)
>> Micronesia, Federated States of - International Standard Classification
>> of Occupations (ISCO)
>> Mozambique - Classiﬁcação das Proﬁssões de Moçambique revisão 2 (CPM Rev2)
>> Nauru - International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO)
>> Netherlands - Standaard Beroepenclassificatie 1992 (SBC 1992)
>> New Zealand - Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of
>> Occupations (ANZSCO)
>> Norway - Standard for yrkesklassifisering (STYRK-08)
>> Palestine - (PSCO) ل د ط ا ير ا ا ف
>> Panama - Clasificación Nacional de Ocupaciones (CNO 2010)
>> Paraguay - Clasificación Paraguaya de Ocupaciones (CPO)
>> Philippines - 2011 Philippine Standard Occupational Classification (PSOC)
>> Poland - Klasyfikacja zawodów i specjalności na potrzeby rynku pracy
>> Portugal - Classificação Portuguesa das Profissões (CPP/2010)
>> Qatar - Occupations
>> Romania - Clasificarea Ocupatiilor din Romania (COR)
>> Russian Federation - Общероссийский классификатор занятий (ОКЗ),
>> Общероссийский классификатор профессий рабочих, должностей служащих и
>> тарифных разрядов (ОКПДТР)
>> Sao Tome and Principe - Classicação das Profissões (CNP)
>> Serbia - Jedinstvena nomenklatura zanimanj / Klasifikacija zanimanja (JNZ
>> / KZ)
>> Singapore - Singapore Standard Occupational Classification (SSOC 2010)
>> Slovakia - Štatistická klasifikácia zamestnaní (ISCO-08)
>> Spain - Clasificación Nacional de Ocupaciones (CNO-11)
>> Suriname - International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-08)
>> Sweden - Standard för svensk yrkesklassificering (SSYK)
>> 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.
>> 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 international one
>> <http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/>, and eventually
>> someone can reconcile the local one.
>> 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.
>> Classification schemes are always a Goldilocks Problem
>> <https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/goldilocks> - 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 ).
>> 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).
>> My text was *not* 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 *extract* of an *intermediate* level, at
>> the 'leaf' level ( click on the Details tab
>> <https://www.onetonline.org/link/details/47-2181.00> ) it goes down to
>> the specific tools used: ... i.e. *Hoists* — 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.
>> That is a fairly extreme hierarchy, but needed for it's intended use -
>> supporting crosswalks.
>> 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.
>> Additionally we are not going to add every single term that describes a
>>> profession as a tag, because there are synonyms and overlap.
>> 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 *all* the
>> tools and materials, just the two *categories* that made the
>> distinction. If it is critical I might put the specific tool name.( 5th
>> level ).
>> It is actually beneficial not to add everything. Over time, the entries
>> actually in the data can be scanned and dichotomous keys
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> Michael Patrick
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging