[OSM-talk] old_name

[John Eldredge]

There are likely some currently-living scholars, tour guides, etc. who 
think of Dublin by all of the old names you mentioned, so, by your logic, 
all of these old names should be included in tags.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- john at jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot 
drive out hate; only love can do that." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.



On September 8, 2015 10:59:17 AM moltonel 3x Combo <moltonel at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 08/09/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Am 08.09.2015 um 14:46 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at gmail.com>:
>>> But I would not add old_name that is currently completely unused.
>>
>> there's one area where old names will be used for sure: old documents,
>> books, film, signs, ...
>>
>> There is no such thing like a currently  completely unused old name,
>> otherwise it wouldn't be an old name.
>> Or maybe I don't understand "currently". Everything I may encounter now?
>
> If you go that route, there's no limit to how far back an old name can
> go. That'd mean that we should add, for example, all of [Dublin's old
> names][1] to the osm object, since they are well documented. It would
> be a silly thing to do, as these names definitely are not a current
> property of Dublin.
>
> IMHO the cuting point should be that the name is used by a living
> person, with "used" defined as "when he thinks (out of some document
> context) about that place, he (at least sometimes) thinks of it using
> that name". It sounds really convoluted when you try a formal
> definition, but I hope the ide is clear ? If some joking friend offers
> to meet me in "Lutèce" I'll know in which city to go, but I certainly
> don't expect OSM to know.
>
>
> [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin#Toponymy
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk