[Tagging] Mapping language borders, tagging offical languages?
joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Sun Sep 16 04:23:04 UTC 2018
On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 1:23 AM Christoph Hormann <osm at imagico.de> wrote:
> > Are you objecting to the idea of tagging places as well as
> > boundaries? What about the protected area / aboriginal lands
> > boundaries?
> * I don't think any tagging concept where the language format tag of a
> feature other than an administrative boundary relation has a meaning beyond
> said feature has a chance to be acutally broadly interpreted by data users.*
*boundary=administrative *may have up 9 levels in some places *(admin_level
2 to 10*)
Do we need to limit the max admin_level that can be used for the language
If not, why would it be a problem to also search for boundaries of
aboriginal_lands in addition to 8 admin boundary levels?
I don't quite understand the technical side of using this database, so
you'll have to explain it like I'm an idiot. :-)
(I do understand how interpreting tags on place nodes would be difficult)
If it's necessary, I'm willing to make a proposal to change aboriginal /
native lands to an administrative boundary, without an admin_level
Would that solve the problem?
> > OK, but is this necessary for it to work? Is a 3-letter ISO code
> > sufficient?
> > Would it be possible to put the language code in the key
> > (language:<code>=default) or is it better to stick to the value?
> * I am not quite sure what your suggestion is. You would need to
> formulate a specific suggestion for me to determine if this would work. *
*language:default=<code>* would have the code as the "value" in the
*language:default=de* would be used on the admin_level=2 boundary for
*language:default=fr;nl *could be used on the administrative boundary for
*language:default=zh;zh_pinyin* could be used in China, if the local
community wants to show the romanized name along with the Chinese characters
This is similar to how name tags are currently formed, though there the key
has the code in format name:<*code*>=
For this to work a database user would need to associate the language
format tag with the name:<*code*> tag, right?
But the *name:<code>* tag doesn't include any special characters.
> Functionally both ideas work the same, right?
> * No, most of the advantages of my tagging concept depend on not having an
> aggregate name tag but tagging the individual names in different languages
> (like name:en, name:fr) separately and defining the locally preferred
> formatting independent of that.*
> *OK. I'm trying to set up the proposal so that this objective can still be
achieved in the long-term.*
Deprecating the default name=* tag will be controversal, so I don't think
it should be combined with this early stage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging