[Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 108, Issue 71, languages & borders

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Sun Sep 16 04:26:53 UTC 2018


Good idea, Paul.
The individual language communities should have the say on what code to
use, especially if there is no language code already used in OSM.

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 12:47 AM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 4:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2018-09-15 16:49 GMT+02:00 Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> If the language of Schiermonnikoog is used to name the hills, streams,
>>> streets and shops on the island, then it could be the default language for
>>> that place.
>>>
>>
>>
>> the local language obviously will be used to name the surroundings, but
>> it might not always have a script we can enter in our database. The
>> information about spoken languages is valuable independent from determining
>> the language used in the name tag.
>>
>
>
> If we're going to do this (for now I don't have a firm opinion either way)
> then I suggest we give some thought as to
> how we tag languages (and possibly scripts).  People have been implicitly
> referring to the ISO 639-1 two-letter
> language codes when they propose tags of the form language:xx=yes.
> They're not really adequate, which is why
> ISO 639-2 three-letter languages codes where introduced.
>
> But those were found to be inadequate in some applications, which is why
> Internet RFCs have built on that.
> Initially, to code for dialects: British and US English differ, and OSM
> prefers en-GB as opposed to en-US.
> Portuguese has two dialects: the one on Portugal and the one in Brazil.
> Welsh has two (three, if you count the
> small enclave of Welsh speakers in a village in Patagonia) and written
> Welsh differs from the spoken dialects
> in some ways.
>
> The latest RFC to try and make sense of all this and provide a sensible
> scheme is RFC 5646 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5646  If you're not a
> programmer, it's hard work trying to figure it all out, so first look at
> the examples in
> Appendix A https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5646#appendix-A to see what can
> be done.
>
> I'm not saying this proposal should adopt RFC 5646 (or even speaking in
> favour of the proposal), just saying that
> if it goes ahead we ought to at least take a look at what others have
> found necessary when tagging languages.
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180916/ac2b91c3/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list