[OSM-talk] Persian/Arabian Gulf Tagging

[Ebrahim Nejati]

Sami Oui <sami.oui112 at gmail.com> writes:

> Then accept it.

Unlike Abdullah, I'm not representing anywhere to "accept" something. My
opinions are my own. Also, as I explained before, this is not how OSM
guidelines work.


> Then someone will add it again and "edit war" will start all over again. If
> you want to avoid an "edit war" then you must see what other solutions
> that worked successfully in a similar situation, which is the Caspian sea (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3987743#:~:text=%2D2149697-,name),
> it has 5 languages and we don't see any Iranian make any edit war after
> that solution was applied.

Why aren't you taking the Mediterranean Sea as a sec cussfull example? I
can't see anywhere in OSM guidelines that A/B is encrouged to use. It is
only defined as an option. To quote from Disputes page [1] in wiki:
# > If there are two common versions of a place name, as a possible but
# > not recommended way, the "name" tag could contain them both (A/B). 


> If you disagree with the OSM guidelines and you think that you have a
> valid point, discuss it here.

I disagree on how the DWG is executing the guidelines in this issue. Exactly
when the current tagging was ever discussed and reached a consensus that
changing it needs so?

I still think "Persian Gulf" (in English) should be put in the `name`
tag it is not in the borders on of any country. That's also how most
international water areas are named.