[OSM-talk] Update: Advice needed - dispute regarding names in Cyprus

Jon Bright jon at siliconcircus.com
Sun Nov 11 17:48:10 GMT 2007


Hi,

David Janda wrote:
> 
> I have been using, for example:
> 
> name=Ozanköy
> name:el=Kazaphani
> name:tr=Ozanköy
> name:en=Ozankoy
> old_name=Kazaphani
> place=village
> is_in=Cyprus

How about

name=Kazaphani/Ozanköy
name:el=Kazaphani
name:tr=Ozanköy
name:en=Ozankoy
name:old=Kazaphani
name:disputed=Ozanköy
name:recognized=Kazaphani
name:signpost=Ozanköy

Putting all this information is of course a pain.  And I don't know if 
it would be sufficient to satisfy user_7363, who strikes me as... 
somewhat hung up about the issue.  But the name tag is clear that there 
are two different names (and puts the internationally-accepted one 
first), the names can be looked up correctly by software producing maps 
for Turkish or Greek consumption, the status of the two names is clear 
and routing software can look up name:signpost to provide directions (or 
just use name, which will probably be sufficient for most).

For borders, I'd suggest border:status=disputed or similar.  In the case 
of borders where two different nations/entities have different positions 
for the border (not the case here, I think - one side just plain says 
the border doesn't exist, the other says it does?), I'd suggest entering 
both, both with :status=disputed and both with :according_to=in/pk (or 
whatever - this example would be for Kashmir).

Basically, aim for documenting the situation without taking any position 
on it.

--
Jon





More information about the talk mailing list