[OSM-talk] Naming disputes in Ukraine
frederik at remote.org
Thu Aug 2 20:22:16 BST 2012
On 02.08.2012 20:43, iONiX wrote:
>> 1. Will be same decision made in other parts of the world, if similar
>> problems will come up?
It depends, but the "on the ground rule" is often the best available
compromise. (Another possible compromise is to say that no "name" tags
are allowed at all in the region, which means that there will be no
labels on openstreetmap.org - then every party is forced to use a
different tile server that serves name:xx tags of their choice. We did
that with Jerusalem once but people weren't happy.)
In general, DWG prefers to be not involved at all. If we have a
community of grown-up and compassionate mappers who recognize that "the
other side" has a point, and who sit together to find a solution that is
acceptable to all, then that is certainly preferable.
>> 2. Information on signs is more important and should be retained in
>> OSM DB even if its proven to be wrong through legislation rulings?
I think that in cases where *no* conflict exists - i.e. a street is
renamed from "A street" to "B street" and there is nobody who says "but
all of us here locally still say A street" then it is acceptable to edit
it EVEN IF the old name is still on a sign.
However, if the edit has even the slightest cultural component - for
example, central government resolves that street name should be B but
local people still use A - then the renaming has to wait until central
government actually puts up a sign.
> We showed examples in forum, why it is not that simple to follow "truth
> on the ground" rule in ukraine. Here are some examples from me:
Yes, it is not simple. The simplest solution would be to say that all
names in the Crimea shold be in Russian, or all names should be in
Ukrainian - the two extreme positions that led to the edit war.
Do you have a better *compromise* solution, or are you arguing for one
of the extreme positions? If you have a better *compromise* solution,
get the buy in from all involved parties and DWG won't stand in your way
when you execute it.
> It seems, this sign (
> ) does not have status part. In both languages name of the street is
> "Кожанова", but status part in ukrainian would be "вулиця" in russian
> "улица". Should status part be removed from street name completely?
Yes, because as soon as you "invent" this status part, you will offend
someone, no matter whether you choose the Ukrainian or the Russian
version of the status part.
> What when street is renamed and you want to send a letter, or some poi
> is located there and have its official address with new name, but old
> signs are still installed (for months or years). Do You really still
> want to rely on those old signs on the street?
I belive that in this case, all involved mappers would be happy when the
street is renamed, no edit war would ensue, and DWG would happily accept
this "violation" of the rule.
> Do I have now permission from DWG to go and change all name tags on
> streets that have belarusian signs?
If there are any streets with Belarusian signs in the Crimea, then
you're welcome to change them.
> I do not want to change name tags to ukrainian language in Crimea for
> now, but it is not an acceptable solution from DWG we now have to respect.
Given that the extreme solutions "all names in Russian" and "all names
in Ukrainian" are not acceptable either, what would you suggest?
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
More information about the talk