[OSM-talk] Persian/Arabian Gulf Tagging

[Mosab Al.bakry]

That is obviously not true. If so, all international waters will just hold
the English name since it is always the "international" name. Let's be
clear here, this is not how OSM ever operated on any international water
ever. I have taken a look at several OSM examples of disputed areas in
terms of naming, and here are what I found. Examples:
1- Gulf of Mexico name tag: Golfo de México (local naming)
2- Red Sea name tag: البحر الأحمر (local naming
3- Arabian Sea name tag: بحر العرب (local naming)
4- Caspian Sea name tag:  Каспийское море / Каспий теңізі / Hazar deňizi /
دریای خزر / Xəzər dənizi (A/B naming).
5- Japan Sea name tag: Японское море / 日本海 / 동해 (A/B naming).
6- Bay of Biscay name tag: Golfe de Gascogne / Golfo de Vizcaya (A/B
naming).
7- English channel name tag: English Channel / La Manche (A/B naming).

Note: these are the first 7 examples I looked at, so I am not
cherry-picking. Admittedly, there were examples such as The Mediterranean
Sea and the Yellow Sea where the entire feature is not present. I am not
sure if they were removed due to naming conflicts or if I just couldn't
find these features. Also, if you can show that adopting the international
name despite naming conflicts is a common OSM tradition or in the OSM
rules, then I may change my mind. As of now, if you are claiming all names
shall be in the UN-supported name, then you are advocating for either
changing all these name tags or make a one-time rule that only applies to
the Arabic/Persian Gulf, which is absurd.

Anyways, these were only a few examples of the naming conventions that are
used right now in OSM around the world. Calling these international waters
not "local" to any country isn't a valid argument within OSM or globally,
so let's stop pretending like it is. You can now see why I am for using the
local name or willing to accept the A/B solution suggested by Li Yaqo. The
local name is in accordance with the OSM rule (on the ground), and the A/B
name seems like a common tradition, so I am not against that. Plus, I would
like to respect the contributions made by the Iranian mappers to OSM, and
that seems to do it.

P.S. I really wish to stop the accusations and prejudice from both sides. I
wish Arabs would stop accusing the Iranians of edit-wars. These are the
behaviors of the few. Also, I wish Iranians would stop calling us
"politically-motivated" despite the fact that we are trying to invoke OSM
rules and defend them.

Best luck to you all,
Musaab


On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 8:05 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 9 Dec 2021, at 15:18, Mosab Al-Bakry <mosab.albakry at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > At this point, to me, this feels like a misunderstanding of OSM rules.
> Do we always invoke the historical/international naming over the local
> naming of an area? If so, have OSM deprecated its "on the ground rule" or
> do I just misunderstanding its meaning? I would prefer a neutral
> third-party clarification on this rule
>
>
> these are international waters, nobody is “local” there.
>
> Cheers Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20211209/bbca6c22/attachment-0001.htm>