Re: [Tagging] Mapping language borders, tagging offical languages?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 at 20:26, Christoph Hormann  wrote:

>
> I am not really familiar with the legal status of aboriginal lands in
> various parts of the world and how use of the names differs betweeen
> the inside and the outside.  I have a hard time imagining an aboriginal
> land with a distinct and homogeneous language use that is not also an
> administrative unit.
>
> If we could discuss this on a practical (and hopefully somewhat
> representative) example that would probably help.
>

Christoph

Here's one example for you of an Australian Aboriginal community, that I
mentioned in an earlier post

Peppimenarti, Northern Territory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Peppimenarti,%20Northern%20Territory?uselang=en-AU
,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3301216487

is part of Victoria Daly Regional Council
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Daly_Region
http://www.victoriadaly.nt.gov.au/daly-river-nauiyu
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5514633

The various references say "The main language spoken in Peppimenarti is
Tyemirri [or Ngan'gityemerri - ISO "nam", to give it it's full name!] with
English being the second most predominant in the area", but also "Although
there are ten different languages and cultural groups, the dominant
languages are Malak Malak and Kriol while English is widely used across the
whole of community."

This would appear to be a fairly representative example of this sort of
community? As my two sources said - the local people speak their own
language amongst themselves, but do also speak English.

So I guess we could draw an admin level 9 or 10 border around Peppi & tag
it with language=eng / nam?

Don't know what you would do Vic Daly though = eng / "language codes 1 -
10"?

& BTW, there's also now an ISO 639-3 table of (3-letter) language codes!
https://iso639-3.sil.org/code_tables/639/data/all

Hope this all helps?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping language borders, tagging offical languages?

[Michael Patrick]

FYI, the U.S. NGA ( National Geospatial Agency ) provides the NGA GEOnet
Names Server (GNS)  with both
a viewer and text lookup  .
Also available are various web services
 ( like WMS ), APIs,
downloads and via shapefiles for GIS software like Qgis. YMMV, i.e. in
Belgium there is very explicit name variants

with associated languages and encodings, in areas of Australia
 the aboriginal names are variants, but the
actual language isn't explicitly named. If you do a search on the  Nicholas
Range ( Badakhshān, Afghanistan ) for example:
( what follows will probably explode in email depending on your client -
alternate

)

Silsilah-ye Kōh-e Wākhān   (Approved - N)
Silsilah   (Generic)
--
سلسله کوه واخان   (Non-Roman Script - NS)
سلسله   (Generic)
--
Nicholas Range   (Variant - V)
--
Qatorkŭhi Vakhon   (Variant - V)
--
Selselah Kōh-e Wākhān   (Variant - V)
--
Selseleh-ye Kūh-e Vākhān   (Variant - V)
Selseleh-ye Kūh   (Generic)
--
Khrebet Vakhanski   (Variant - V)
--
Vakhanskiy Khrebet   (Variant - V)
--
Qatorkŭhi Vakhon   (Variant - V)
--
Vakhsh Mountains   (Variant - V)
--
Wa-han P’a-mi-erh   (Variant - V)
--
Selsela-Koh-i-Wākhān   (Variant - V)

About what you expect - Russian, English, Arabic, Chinese, Arabic, etc.

A lookup of Yopurga , Xinjiang, China ( a seat of a third-order
administrative division), you will find many Uighur ( aboriginal) variants
expressed in both Cyrillic ( Ёпурға ) and Arabic ( يوپۇرغا) - this includes
historical entries. The dates can be helpful in determining the relevance -
in some areas of the world the only map name may have come of a British
Ordnance Survey in the 1800's.

Rumor has it the very best current language data is a proprietary database
owned by a evangelical christian organization that is verified by a network
of missionaries working in those areas. Almost all the language data has
some sort of license or copyright attached to it - the NGA data is the
standard US Federal "do whatever you want' with it, and the folks I've met
from NGA are very supportive of the OSM project.

Hope some of this helps form your proposal.

Michael Patrick,
OSM Seattle
Data Ferret






>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Telephone exchange

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Clifford Snow 
wrote:

>
> Not sure what the British English equivalent would be to central office.
>

Telephone Exchange.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Telephone exchange

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 3:50 AM Simon Poole  wrote:

>
> Wasn't there just a longish discussion about this, and that its origin
> goes back to marketing language used by Bell?-


 As a former Bell System employee I can tell you we used the term central
office to describe buildings that contained a main frame (MDF), a cable
(local loop) entrance, a telephone switch and usually some sort of
emergency power. It wasn't so much as a marketing term but an engineering
term to describe the buildings function. For example other buildings might
be a repeater station or main station. Early telephone central office did
have windows. Sometime during the 60s and 70s buildings were built without
windows, and some even bricked over, especially on the ground level. I left
just as the VOIP was being introduced so I'm not sure how many switches
still exist. But my sense is there are still many in operation. With the
smaller size of equipment, the telephone exchange may still exist, but they
now rent out space.

There are enough central offices left that I would keep the tag until the
buildings are repurposed. I know of one in Seattle that is now an apartment
building on the upper floors and a glass blowing studio on the ground level
floor.

Not sure what the British English equivalent would be to central office.


@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping language borders, tagging offical languages?

[Christoph Hormann]

On Sunday 16 September 2018, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> "you would need extensive external data to determine how to
> actually display combinations of names (which obviously depends on
> the languages and scripts involved)"
>
> Do you mean how to decide which name is displayed "first"?  On the
> left / on top etc?

No, the order is simply a matter of deciding if your list is supposed to 
be an ordered list or not.  I mean the form in which the different 
names are displayed.  If you look at how the name tag is used in 
various parts of the world with combinations of different languages 
this varies a lot.  I don't know how much of this is just arbitrary 
choices based on personal typesetting preferences and how much of this 
represents actual local cultural conventions but my intent was not to 
impose a culturally imperialistic corset on how names will be shown to 
all names world wide but allow mappers to document their local 
conventions.  It is still up to the map designers how far they want to 
use that of course.

The most common separating elements between different language names in 
name tags are '-' and '/' - usually enclosed by spaces.  But that is 
obviously based on latin script dominance.  Other scripts and to some 
extent also latin script languages have different conventions.  If you 
have names in well distinguishable scripts a separator is often 
unnecessary and uncommon.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping language borders, tagging offical languages?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

"you would need extensive external data to determine how to
actually display combinations of names (which obviously depends on the
languages and scripts involved)"

Do you mean how to decide which name is displayed "first"?  On the left /
on top etc?

I think that's up to map designers.

But I suppose the order of the language codes in the value could considered
the suggested order to use
(Eg language:default=ara;fr tagged on the boundary of Morocco would mean:
"Show Arabic and French names,
Perhaps put Arabic first."

If mappers want to "paint the label", as you phrased it, then the name=*
tag already works for that.
But this proposal is suggesting moving away from micromanaging the way
multiple language names are displayed together

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 10:09 PM Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> On Sunday 16 September 2018, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> >
> > *Would it be feasible for database users to query
> > boundary=aboriginal_lands along with the admin boundaries*?
>
> As said i can't really form an opinion on this without a real world
> example, the corresponding data and a suggestion how this should be
> interpreted together with the administrative boundaries.
>
> Of course you can somehow formulate a rule for that but i am not sure if
> this would make sense and be intuitive for the mapper.
>
> > It should be interpreted with the individual language name tags.
> > If the default language is zh;zh_pinyin (Chinese and romanized
> > Chinese), there should be a name:zh and name:zh_pinyin tag on each
> > feature within the boundary, in theory, and these two name tags
> > should be combined in an international map rendering.
>
> But then you would need extensive external data to determine how to
> actually display combinations of names (which obviously depends on the
> languages and scripts involved).  Evidence in how the name tag is used
> for combining different names in different parts of the world shows
> that the local conventions on how to display different languages
> together varies quite strongly.
>
> Or in other words:  It is very easy for data users to generate a list of
> languages from a format string if required but it is rather difficult
> if not impossible to generate an accurate and suitable format string
> for every combination of languages from just a list of languages.  If
> this is just a question of typesetting rules that is the resposibility
> of the map designer obviously but i have the impression this is also a
> matter of local culture w.r.t. names and languages and that is
> something that can and should be mapped.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Telephone exchange

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 16. Sep 2018, at 13:57, François Lacombe  wrote:
> 
> Building=central_office is less consistent
> Building=service is more suitable


for me, both would be ok, I definitely would not use building=industrial which 
is clearly a step back, although it is used quite frequently, I would not 
consider it a good tag for anything that you know what it is. At the very 
least, industrial buildings could be divided in production buildings and 
storage. Storage will be for either resources or products. 

Although industrial areas are often very big, we currently have mostly not 
developed specific tagging which would allow us to map a big industrial plant 
in a way that it can roughly be understood ((speaking of very generic detail, 
nothing too specific), nor do we have ways to tag different areas within these 
plants. Every industry will have their own requirements, e.g. chemical 
industry, automotive, steel, textile, electronics, furniture, aviation 
industry, construction, glass, ships, toys, mining, power production, etc.

We are way behind the detail in industrial areas compared to what we add in 
residential or commercial areas of the same scale. Generally, these are private 
properties, and this may be part of the reason, but although the possibility of 
surveys is reduced to be either performed by people working there, or in areas 
that may be visited by the public, there are usually sufficient possibilities 
to get information through research on their webpage and from other publicly 
available material, and by looking at the structure (sometimes, e.g. steel 
production). 

Besides the parts, often you can’t even tell by looking at the tags what the 
whole industry is about, e.g. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6789235#map=13/52.4389/10.7655
no mention, at least currently, of automotive.

tl;dr: We need more detail for industrial “things” (at all scales), not less.

Cheers,
Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping language borders, tagging offical languages?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Sorry, the example may not have been clear. It was simple an example of a
bilingual tag that might be used in a place where signs show the name in
Chinese characters, plus a latin alphabet version. This might happen in an
overseas Chinese community. I was mainly looking for a combination of two
tags that might be found, one of which uses a standard ISO code and the
other of which is used in OSM but is non-standard, just to show the
possible format.

In most cases there is going to be one language, just like most name tags
are currently in one language, and that will be the local or official
language, in the script used on signs. Brussels, Belgium, and Morocco and a
few other places are unusual exceptions.

So I think it should work the way you would like; the locally used name, in
the local script, should be displayed.

Joseph

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 9:51 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> I don't (yet) have an opinion either way on the feasibility or
> desirability of tagging languages used in a region.  But this...
>
> It should be interpreted with the individual language name tags.
>> If the default language is zh;zh_pinyin (Chinese and romanized Chinese),
>> there should be a name:zh and name:zh_pinyin tag on each feature within the
>> boundary, in theory, and these two name tags should be combined in an
>> international map rendering.
>>
>> In theory, this should look similar to what we currently get with the
>> name=* tag
>>
>
> This is something I strongly disagree with.  For most objects, name=*
> should not be translated because, for most
> objects it should be, in my opinion, an opaque representation of signage.
> If I don't speak the local language I need to
> know what to look for on the street sign or the shopfront sign as
> represented on the signage.  Knowing what it would
> say if the locals had decided to put up signage in English is not very
> helpful.  An IPA rendering of the local pronunciation
> of the name might be beneficial for those with text-to-speech.
>
> If a sign is bilingual then using name=xx: and name=yy: are perhaps of
> merit in breaking down the components of the
> full name.  E.g., a sign near me says "Heol Napier / Napier Street" (the
> slash isn't actually present, the name is broken
> up into two lines) and so name="Heol Napier / Napier Street" +
> name:cy="Heol Napier" + name:en="Napier Street" is
> one possible way of representing it in a meaningful way.
>
> But how are you going to handle a house name like "Duncavin" which is
> about a mile from me?  The "Dun" is
> Scottish for "fort."  It's a house in Wales which is bilingual
> English/Welsh.  And the name is a bad pun.  Displaying
> the name phonetically might help somebody asking a local where the place
> is.  Displaying a translation (even if
> the pun works in the other language) isn't useful.  What's needed is what
> the sign actually displays, not what it would
> display if it were in a different language.
>
> Yes, knowing the language(s) spoken in a particular region might be
> useful.  Yes, having the query tool display tag names
> like "shop" and "amenity" in the user's preferred language would be very
> useful.  Rendering a house name like "Penrallt"
> or "Y Felin" in Cryrilic or Arabic or Hebrew script isn't really going to
> help anyone because house and street names are
> often labels whose meaning is opaque.  Is 在米爾路上 (blame Google Translate,
> not me) really going to help somebody
> looking for a sign that has these literal characters on it: "Garnon's Mill
> Road"?  Conversely, if I were in China and I
> were looking for a road signed "在米爾路上" would it help me to know it meant
> "Garnon's Mill Road"?
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping language borders, tagging offical languages?

[Christoph Hormann]

On Sunday 16 September 2018, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
> *Would it be feasible for database users to query
> boundary=aboriginal_lands along with the admin boundaries*?

As said i can't really form an opinion on this without a real world 
example, the corresponding data and a suggestion how this should be 
interpreted together with the administrative boundaries.

Of course you can somehow formulate a rule for that but i am not sure if 
this would make sense and be intuitive for the mapper.

> It should be interpreted with the individual language name tags.
> If the default language is zh;zh_pinyin (Chinese and romanized
> Chinese), there should be a name:zh and name:zh_pinyin tag on each
> feature within the boundary, in theory, and these two name tags
> should be combined in an international map rendering.

But then you would need extensive external data to determine how to 
actually display combinations of names (which obviously depends on the 
languages and scripts involved).  Evidence in how the name tag is used 
for combining different names in different parts of the world shows 
that the local conventions on how to display different languages 
together varies quite strongly.

Or in other words:  It is very easy for data users to generate a list of 
languages from a format string if required but it is rather difficult 
if not impossible to generate an accurate and suitable format string 
for every combination of languages from just a list of languages.  If 
this is just a question of typesetting rules that is the resposibility 
of the map designer obviously but i have the impression this is also a 
matter of local culture w.r.t. names and languages and that is 
something that can and should be mapped.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping language borders, tagging offical languages?

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

I don't (yet) have an opinion either way on the feasibility or desirability
of tagging languages used in a region.  But this...

It should be interpreted with the individual language name tags.
> If the default language is zh;zh_pinyin (Chinese and romanized Chinese),
> there should be a name:zh and name:zh_pinyin tag on each feature within the
> boundary, in theory, and these two name tags should be combined in an
> international map rendering.
>
> In theory, this should look similar to what we currently get with the
> name=* tag
>

This is something I strongly disagree with.  For most objects, name=*
should not be translated because, for most
objects it should be, in my opinion, an opaque representation of signage.
If I don't speak the local language I need to
know what to look for on the street sign or the shopfront sign as
represented on the signage.  Knowing what it would
say if the locals had decided to put up signage in English is not very
helpful.  An IPA rendering of the local pronunciation
of the name might be beneficial for those with text-to-speech.

If a sign is bilingual then using name=xx: and name=yy: are perhaps of
merit in breaking down the components of the
full name.  E.g., a sign near me says "Heol Napier / Napier Street" (the
slash isn't actually present, the name is broken
up into two lines) and so name="Heol Napier / Napier Street" +
name:cy="Heol Napier" + name:en="Napier Street" is
one possible way of representing it in a meaningful way.

But how are you going to handle a house name like "Duncavin" which is about
a mile from me?  The "Dun" is
Scottish for "fort."  It's a house in Wales which is bilingual
English/Welsh.  And the name is a bad pun.  Displaying
the name phonetically might help somebody asking a local where the place
is.  Displaying a translation (even if
the pun works in the other language) isn't useful.  What's needed is what
the sign actually displays, not what it would
display if it were in a different language.

Yes, knowing the language(s) spoken in a particular region might be
useful.  Yes, having the query tool display tag names
like "shop" and "amenity" in the user's preferred language would be very
useful.  Rendering a house name like "Penrallt"
or "Y Felin" in Cryrilic or Arabic or Hebrew script isn't really going to
help anyone because house and street names are
often labels whose meaning is opaque.  Is 在米爾路上 (blame Google Translate,
not me) really going to help somebody
looking for a sign that has these literal characters on it: "Garnon's Mill
Road"?  Conversely, if I were in China and I
were looking for a road signed "在米爾路上" would it help me to know it meant
"Garnon's Mill Road"?

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Telephone exchange

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 12:57 PM, François Lacombe <
fl.infosrese...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Please have a look to RFC
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Telecom_local_loop
>
> We wish to introduce telecom=* to specify functional role of such
> facilities
> Building=central_office is less consistent
> Building=service is more suitable
>

Yep.  "Central office" could apply to any organization.  It's Bell-speak
for "Exchange.."   I'm glad to see it go.

Except a lingering trace remains.  The first sub-heading under "Tagging" is
"Central Office."  Should be "Exchange."

-- 
Paul


> All the best
>
> François
>
>
> Le dim. 16 sept. 2018 à 12:51, Simon Poole  a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> Am 16.09.2018 um 11:53 schrieb Andy Townsend:
>> > Re "central office", it's not really an English term.
>>
>> Wasn't there just a longish discussion about this, and that its origin
>> goes back to marketing language used by Bell?
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Telephone exchange

[François Lacombe]

Sent from a phone

Hi all

Please have a look to RFC
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Telecom_local_loop

We wish to introduce telecom=* to specify functional role of such facilities
Building=central_office is less consistent
Building=service is more suitable

All the best

François


Le dim. 16 sept. 2018 à 12:51, Simon Poole  a écrit :

>
>
> Am 16.09.2018 um 11:53 schrieb Andy Townsend:
> > Re "central office", it's not really an English term.
>
> Wasn't there just a longish discussion about this, and that its origin
> goes back to marketing language used by Bell?
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping language borders, tagging offical languages?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 7:26 PM Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> > would it be a problem to also search for boundaries of
> > aboriginal_lands in addition to 8 admin boundary levels?
>
> I am not really familiar with the legal status of aboriginal lands in
> various parts of the world and how use of the names differs betweeen
> the inside and the outside.  I have a hard time imagining an aboriginal
> land with a distinct and homogeneous language use that is not also an
> administrative unit.
>

Native America and Alaskan Native reservations in the USA have some
administrative functions, in some cases superseeding the admin_level 4
"State", but in other cases functioning as a lower admin level. This comes
from their history as "foreign nations" whose lands were incorporated into
the USA (and Canada) based on treaties (and war).

So they are generally tagged with boundary=aboriginal_lands. Some mappers
dislike the word "aboriginal" or dislike having a specific tag, and instead
use the boundary=protected_area tag with a subtag specifiying a cultural /
social protected group.

Some American Indian nations no longer use their language, but others are
very vibrant, eg on the huge Navajo Nation reservation in Arizona and New
Mexico, the majority speak the Navajo language (169,000 native speakers)
and it's used for local place names. The boundary cuts across two states
and several counties. Many aboriginal_lands areas in Brazil have strong use
of the local language, and some of the Aboriginal areas in Australia and
Canada as well.

*Would it be feasible for database users to query boundary=aboriginal_lands
along with the admin boundaries*? Is there a technical limitation?
For example, could the Openstreetmap Carto style handle this?


> > *language:default=de* would be used on the admin_level=2 boundary for
> > Germany
> > *language:default=fr;nl *could be used on the administrative boundary
> > for Brussels
>
> I am not sure what exactly this tag is supposed to mean.  Is it just the
> format string i suggested indicating the locally preferred form of name
> display minus the actual form, i.e. reduced to a list of component
> names or is it something different?
>

It's nearly the same as your example of* language_format=$de *for Germany;
I've just replaced _format with :default to hopefully make it more
understandable for mappers

And I removed the '$' symbol, because I have not yet understood why it
would be beneficial

Yes, it should indicate the locally preferred form of name display, which
should, in theory, be equivalent to the actual use on the ground.
Bilingual names need to be supported for places such as Brussels, Morocco
etc.

how is the data user supposed to interpret this tag?  ... [Is it]
> supposed to be interpreted in combination with the plain, possibly
> compund name tag or with the individual language name tags.[?]
>

It should be interpreted with the individual language name tags.
If the default language is zh;zh_pinyin (Chinese and romanized Chinese),
there should be a name:zh and name:zh_pinyin tag on each feature within the
boundary, in theory, and these two name tags should be combined in an
international map rendering.

In theory, this should look similar to what we currently get with the
name=* tag

I am willing to propose that the name=* tag should be listed as "optional"
in the wiki, and proposing that the JOSM and ID editor folks change the
validators and presets.
But I'm reluctant to expand the scope of this proposal, it's already a big
change.

Joseph
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Telephone exchange

[Simon Poole]

Am 16.09.2018 um 11:53 schrieb Andy Townsend:
> Re "central office", it's not really an English term.

Wasn't there just a longish discussion about this, and that its origin
goes back to marketing language used by Bell?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping language borders, tagging offical languages?

[Christoph Hormann]

On Sunday 16 September 2018, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 1:23 AM Christoph Hormann  
wrote:
> > > Are you objecting to the idea of tagging places as well as
> > > boundaries? What about the protected area / aboriginal lands
> > > boundaries?
> >
> > * I don't think any tagging concept where the language format tag
> > of a feature other than an administrative boundary relation has a
> > meaning beyond said feature has a chance to be acutally broadly
> > interpreted by data users.*
>
> *boundary=administrative *may have up 9 levels in some places
> *(admin_level 2 to 10*)
> Do we need to limit the max admin_level that can be used for the
> language tag?
> If not, why would it be a problem to also search for boundaries of
> aboriginal_lands in addition to 8 admin boundary levels?

I am not really familiar with the legal status of aboriginal lands in 
various parts of the world and how use of the names differs betweeen 
the inside and the outside.  I have a hard time imagining an aboriginal 
land with a distinct and homogeneous language use that is not also an 
administrative unit.

If we could discuss this on a practical (and hopefully somewhat 
representative) example that would probably help.

>
> *language:default=* would have the code as the "value" in the
> key=value pair
>
> Examples:
>
> *language:default=de* would be used on the admin_level=2 boundary for
> Germany
> *language:default=fr;nl *could be used on the administrative boundary
> for Brussels
> *language:default=zh;zh_pinyin* could be used in China, if the local
> community wants to show the romanized name along with the Chinese
> characters

I am not sure what exactly this tag is supposed to mean.  Is it just the 
format string i suggested indicating the locally preferred form of name 
display minus the actual form, i.e. reduced to a list of component 
names or is it something different?

And how is the data user supposed to interpret this tag?  Since you do 
not want to deprecate the name tag it is not clear to me if it is 
supposed to be interpreted in combination with the plain, possibly 
compund name tag or with the individual language name tags.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Telephone exchange

[Andy Townsend]

Re "central office", it's not really an English term.  I'm guessing that 
it was translated from French - see 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037016.html 
and 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Telecom_local_loop 
.  The English term that matches this concept is "Telephone Exchange".  
"amenity=telephone_exchange" is of course in common use, and if a 
building looks like a telephone exchange (certainly many in the UK have 
a common design) then "building=telephone_exchange" may also make sense.


"building=central_office" won't mean much to data consumers beyond 
"building=yes", but like Chris said, people can use whatever tags they like.


Best Regards,

Andy


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Telephone exchange

[Warin]

Not all of them have no windows.
I'd tag it as what it is, building=telephone_exchange. That would be 
suitable with or without windows.


I have added a section on them to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:WikiProject_Telecoms#Telephone_Exchange


You can attempt to contact the original mapper .. they may well point to 
the OSM wiki telecoms page, that looks to be the source of it.


On 16/09/18 18:48, Anton Klim wrote:

Hi,
The telecom tagging scheme (on wiki) definitely had a tag for 
telephone exchanges.

For a building without windows, I’d suggest building=service


16 сент. 2018 г., в 8:48, José G Moya Y. > написал(а):



Hi!

Path 374362033 ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374362033 ) is a 
building with no windows in Calle del Fúcar, 28014 Madrid that 
contains a phone exchange (originally it was a gigantic relay system 
for the phones of the area, now probably replaced with smaller 
computers and microcontrollers).

It is tagged as "building=central office", a non-standard tag.
I wonder if tagging it as "building=industrial" would be better, 
despite of the whole neigbourhood being officially classified as 
"tertiary use" (non-industrial).


Or maybe "building=yes" would be just enough. Path 28996211 ( 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28996211 ) is a similar phone 
exchange building, near Delicias, Madrid, enough old to be announced 
as "phone booths that way" on the street. It is tagged as "building=yes".


Do you think I should change the tag on 374362033?

Yours,
José Moya
Madrid


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Telephone exchange

[Chris Hill]

On 16/09/2018 08:48, José G Moya Y. wrote:

Hi!

Path 374362033 ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374362033 ) is a 
building with no windows in Calle del Fúcar, 28014 Madrid that 
contains a phone exchange (originally it was a gigantic relay system 
for the phones of the area, now probably replaced with smaller 
computers and microcontrollers).

It is tagged as "building=central office", a non-standard tag.
I wonder if tagging it as "building=industrial" would be better, 
despite of the whole neigbourhood being officially classified as 
"tertiary use" (non-industrial).


Or maybe "building=yes" would be just enough. Path 28996211 ( 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28996211 ) is a similar phone 
exchange building, near Delicias, Madrid, enough old to be announced 
as "phone booths that way" on the street. It is tagged as "building=yes".


Do you think I should change the tag on 374362033?



Any mapper can use any tag they like, there are no approved or standard 
tags, only well-used and (sometimes) documented tags. building=central 
office may mean something to the mapper.


I would contact the mapper with a friendly message asking what they were 
trying to do and suggesting more widely used tags if that seems useful, 
but don't force a change.


As a data consumer, I think that any value on a key that I don't 
specifically use is the same as key=yes, so I would treat 
building=central office in the same way as building=yes.


--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Telephone exchange

[Anton Klim]

Hi,
The telecom tagging scheme (on wiki) definitely had a tag for telephone 
exchanges. 
For a building without windows, I’d suggest building=service


> 16 сент. 2018 г., в 8:48, José G Moya Y.  написал(а):
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Path 374362033 ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374362033 ) is a building 
> with no windows in Calle del Fúcar, 28014 Madrid that contains a phone 
> exchange (originally it was a gigantic relay system for the phones of the 
> area, now probably replaced with smaller computers and microcontrollers). 
> It is tagged as "building=central office", a non-standard tag.
> I wonder if tagging it as "building=industrial" would be better, despite of 
> the whole neigbourhood being officially classified as "tertiary use" 
> (non-industrial). 
> 
> Or maybe "building=yes" would be just enough. Path 28996211 ( 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28996211 ) is a similar phone exchange 
> building, near Delicias, Madrid, enough old to be announced as "phone booths 
> that way" on the street. It is tagged as "building=yes".
> 
> Do you think I should change the tag on 374362033?
> 
> Yours, 
> José Moya
> Madrid
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping language borders, tagging offical languages?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 16. Sep 2018, at 06:23, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> boundary=administrative may have up 9 levels in some places (admin_level 2 to 
> 10) 

even admin_level 11 in some places:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/admin_level#values
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative#11_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries


Cheers,
Martin___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Telephone exchange

[José G Moya Y .]

Hi!

Path 374362033 ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374362033 ) is a
building with no windows in Calle del Fúcar, 28014 Madrid that contains a
phone exchange (originally it was a gigantic relay system for the phones of
the area, now probably replaced with smaller computers and
microcontrollers).
It is tagged as "building=central office", a non-standard tag.
I wonder if tagging it as "building=industrial" would be better, despite of
the whole neigbourhood being officially classified as "tertiary use"
(non-industrial).

Or maybe "building=yes" would be just enough. Path 28996211 (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28996211 ) is a similar phone exchange
building, near Delicias, Madrid, enough old to be announced as "phone
booths that way" on the street. It is tagged as "building=yes".

Do you think I should change the tag on 374362033?

Yours,
José Moya
Madrid
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging