[Tagging] Draft Proposal: Default Langauge Format

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Thu Sep 27 00:54:16 UTC 2018

While it is a good idea to address the issues around name=* and name:<lg>=*
tags, this proposal is a necessary first step before we can do anything
Frederik's perferred solution and Christoph's idea both require there to be
a default language format tag.

I would recommend approving this proposal in some form first, then we can
have a separate discussion about the name tags. So I have removed a couple
of short comments from the proposal to avoid this confusion.

Tags for official languages should also be a separate discussion (though I
also think this idea has merit).


On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:19 AM Christoph Hormann <osm at imagico.de> wrote:

> On Wednesday 26 September 2018, Wolfgang Zenker wrote:
> > > * allow mappers to accurately document information on names of
> > > features in all situations that might exist world wide where there
> > > are verifiable names with as little effort and in the least error
> > > prone way as possible.
> > > * allow data users to interpret this data without constraints due
> > > to intransparent preprocessing performed by the mappers.
> >
> > I'm not sure that all the participants in this discussion and all the
> > supporters of the draft proposal (and previous proposals) do really
> > agree on the ultimate aim of that proposal.
> Yes, of course i should have mentioned that this is just my personal
> opinion.  I did not mean to imply to speak for anyone else.
> > Hence my suggestion to
> > explore the problem space first and find out what problem(s)
> > different people try to solve with that proposal, then identify the
> > constraints that reduce the possible solutions space and the "nice to
> > have" properties that we'ld like to see in the solution.
> Yes, you can try to systematically develop a solution after defining
> requirements and quantifying priorities.  But you need to keep in mind
> that in OSM you have no centralized decision making process as you
> usually have in engineering disciplines.  So you would already have
> trouble finding agreement on what exactly the problem is.  And
> experience tells that the solution space is typically much smaller than
> the problem space when it comes to tagging in OSM.  Long story short:
> Finding consensus on the solution is often much easier than on the
> problem.
> Still you are right, systematically collecting all the problems related
> to name data recording in OSM would be quite useful - even if just from
> a single person's perspective.  But that is already quite a huge amount
> of work.
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180927/6d5b1f54/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list