[Tagging] Mapping language borders, tagging offical languages?
joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Sat Sep 15 15:33:23 UTC 2018
* the choice of suggesting tagging the language information on either
> the administrative boundary relations or the individual features but
> not on any other feature with a meaning beyond the feature itself was
> not arbitrary.
Are you objecting to the idea of tagging places as well as boundaries?
What about the protected area / aboriginal lands boundaries?
I was trying to avoid tagging individual POIs and features with
language:default=xxx, to reduce the workload on mappers.
Is it not yet feasible to associate nodes with the nearest place?
> * the choice of syntax for the language string is something that can be
> discussed obviously. You can essentially use any characters that are
> unlikely to occur in an actual format as structuring elements. The
> dollar sign is a common symbol prefix here.
OK, but is this necessary for it to work? Is a 3-letter ISO code
Would it be possible to put the language code in the key
(language:<code>=default) or is it better to stick to the value?
> * the core of my proposal is not using the plain "name" tag any more for
> anything other than legacy fallback if other data is missing. Any
> proposal to separately tag the language of the name tag ... is a very
> different idea.
Functionally both ideas work the same, right? In particular, tagging
specific POIs with language_format=<code> or language_default=<code> is
tagging the language of the default name, unless the two tags were added by
different mappers with opposing ideas.
I didn't want to bring up anything about deprecating the defaul name=* tags
or stopping rendering them.
That can be discussed sometime in the future if this proposal catches on.
1) Do we really need that $ symbol?
2) Language code in value vs key?
3) Tagging settled places?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging