EO W dniu 20-01-06 o 09:59, Michael Patrick pisze: > There is a 'reason'. Toponyms at all levels are established > by naming authorities and conventions at from the village > to the international level, for all sorts of domains. The > key point is, the locality decides, not outsiders - there > is no rationalization for you to give any name preference > until you have consulted with them and documented that > cooperation. Otherwise you are just using OSM as a > platform for your own flavor of 'techno-imperialism'. Vi rajtas, ke toponimoj (nomoj de lokoj) estas nomataj de lokuloj, ne de eksteruloj. Problemo estas, ke tiu ĉi diskuto rilatas al nomoj de INTERNACIAJ OBJEKTOJ, do kiu laŭ vi havas rajton por nomi marojn de ekz. Suda Oceano?
W dniu 20-01-06 o 09:59, Michael Patrick pisze: > There aren't any 'neutral' natural languages. They > have many roots, continually incorporate words > from other languages, and some die off. JES, do ni uzu planitan lingvon! Mi proponas Esperanton (pro ĝia populareco) aŭ Interlingvaon (pro ĝi estas komprenata sen lerni por uzantoj de latindiaj lingvoj). W dniu 20-01-06 o 13:45, Mario Frasca pisze: > > Hi Tomek, and everybody. > > being this an English list, I'll write in English, I'm tempted to use > Spanish, or Italian. my written Latin is poor. > Mi pensis ke tio ĉi estas internacia listo… W dniu 20-01-06 o 13:45, Mario Frasca pisze: > I disagree that the tag 'name' should be removed > I'm aware of one place in the world where they have three national > languages: Morocco, and what happens there is that the map uses the > three national languages for all names, and the map looks so clumsy > this way, in particular with the Amazigh name included (I have tested > some locals on their knowledge of the written language, and I am > fairly sure that 95% of Amazigh people can't even read it). quite > regularly, you see people editing the 'name' tag to make it less > clumsy, by removing two of the languages (those they don't like, I guess). Kial mi eblas fari la samon por maroj? “Baltijas jūra / Baltijos jūra / Itämeri / Läänemeri / Morze Bałtyckie / Östersjön / Østersøen / Ostsee / Балтийское море” - neniu estos diskriminaciita. W dniu 20-01-06 o 15:12, Martin Constantino–Bodin pisze: > The reason why I believe the “name” tag should not be placed in such > place is semantic: there is no best local name, so let’s not put any. > This then enables any renderrer to default to a language of their > choice (or to check for other, possibly more adequate tags, like > “name:UN:*”). If you put a “name” tag here, I can’t do that. I’ve been > suggesting to create a renderrer that just uses “name:eo” if present… > just to be told right away that this is not a good solution as it > would basically chooses the Esperanto name for everything instead of > just these places where there is no default language. I think that > having an empty “name” tag or not having a “name” tag would be a nice > indication that there is not best “name” tag, and leave each renderrer > use their heuristics (or just display no name). Ekzakte, ĉu en 56°N18°E flosas buo kun teksto ”Baltic Sea“? Ne, tie estas nur akvo, kiu estas nomata fare de poloj kiel “Morze Bałtyckie”, fare de germanoj kiel ”Ostsee“, ktp. W dniu 20-01-06 o 15:45, Joseph Eisenberg pisze: > (Note that Openstreetmap-carto does not render the names of oceans, > continents and seas, but does render the names of some large bays and > straits and islands which are relevant to this discussion) Nur rilatoj kun etikedoj ekz. natural=bay aŭ water=sea estas bildigataj sur la mapo. W dniu 20-01-06 o 16:35, Martin Koppenhoefer pisze: > Not sure this has to be discussed, in OpenStreetMap we’re trying to represent > the current state of things La nuna situacio en la reala mondo estas ke la menciitaj objektoj ne havas iun ajn nomon “sur la tero”. W dniu 20-01-06 o 16:35, Martin Koppenhoefer pisze: > Esperanto, which you personally seem to prefer, and which is around for 133 > years, is only understood by, with most favorable estimates, 2 Million people > (compared to billions for English) and while remaining susceptible for > criticism of eurocentrism similar to English and not being “neutral” in any > way, it is completely artificial so that the “names” in Esperanto are used by > nobody. Choosing Esperanto would be a loose-loose situation, from my point of > view. Kiom da tempo necesas por lerni Esperanton kaj kiom da tempo necesas por lerni la anglan? Se vi volas nomojn komprenataj de kiel eble plej multa da homoj, mi proponas Interlingvaon. PL W dniu 20-01-06 o 09:59, Michael Patrick pisze: > > There is a 'reason'. Toponyms at all levels are established > by naming authorities and conventions at from the village > to the international level, for all sorts of domains. The > key point is, the locality decides, not outsiders - there > is no rationalization for you to give any name preference > until you have consulted with them and documented that > cooperation. Otherwise you are just using OSM as a > platform for your own flavor of 'techno-imperialism'. Masz racje, że toponimy (nazwy miejsc) są nadawane przez miejscową ludność, nie przez ludzi zamiejscowych. Problemem jest, że ta dyskusja odnosi się do nazw OBIEKTÓW MIĘDZYNARODOWYCH, więc kto według Ciebie ma prawo nazwania np. mórz Oceanu Południowego? W dniu 20-01-06 o 09:59, Michael Patrick pisze: > There aren't any 'neutral' natural languages. They > have many roots, continually incorporate words > from other languages, and some die off. TAK, więc używajmy języka planowanego! Albo Esperanto (z powodu popularności) albo Interlingua (ponieważ jest zrozumiały bez nauki dla użytkowników języków romańskich). W dniu 20-01-06 o 13:45, Mario Frasca pisze: > > Hi Tomek, and everybody. > > being this an English list, I'll write in English, I'm tempted to use > Spanish, or Italian. my written Latin is poor. > Znowu myślałem, że to jest lista międzynarodowa… W dniu 20-01-06 o 13:45, Mario Frasca pisze: > I disagree that the tag 'name' should be removed > I'm aware of one place in the world where they have three national > languages: Morocco, and what happens there is that the map uses the > three national languages for all names, and the map looks so clumsy > this way, in particular with the Amazigh name included (I have tested > some locals on their knowledge of the written language, and I am > fairly sure that 95% of Amazigh people can't even read it). quite > regularly, you see people editing the 'name' tag to make it less > clumsy, by removing two of the languages (those they don't like, I guess). Dlaczego nie można zrobić tego samego dla mórz? „Baltijas jūra / Baltijos jūra / Itämeri / Läänemeri / Morze Bałtyckie / Östersjön / Østersøen / Ostsee / Балтийское море” - nikt będzie poszkodowany. W dniu 20-01-06 o 15:12, Martin Constantino–Bodin pisze: > The reason why I believe the “name” tag should not be placed in such > place is semantic: there is no best local name, so let’s not put any. > This then enables any renderrer to default to a language of their > choice (or to check for other, possibly more adequate tags, like > “name:UN:*”). If you put a “name” tag here, I can’t do that. I’ve been > suggesting to create a renderrer that just uses “name:eo” if present… > just to be told right away that this is not a good solution as it > would basically chooses the Esperanto name for everything instead of > just these places where there is no default language. I think that > having an empty “name” tag or not having a “name” tag would be a nice > indication that there is not best “name” tag, and leave each renderrer > use their heuristics (or just display no name). Dokładnie, czy w 56°N18°E pływa sobie boja z napisem „Morze Bałtyckie”? Nie, tam jest po prostu woda przez Polaków nazywana „Morze Bałtyckie”, przez Niemców „Ostsee”, itd. W dniu 20-01-06 o 15:45, Joseph Eisenberg pisze: > (Note that Openstreetmap-carto does not render the names of oceans, > continents and seas, but does render the names of some large bays and > straits and islands which are relevant to this discussion) Tylko relacje ze znacznikiem np. natural=bay lub water=sea są renderowane na mapie. W dniu 20-01-06 o 16:35, Martin Koppenhoefer pisze: > Not sure this has to be discussed, in OpenStreetMap we’re trying to represent > the current state of things Według obecnej sytuacji w świecie rzeczywistym wspomniane obiekty nie mają jakiejkolwiek nazwy „na ziemi”. W dniu 20-01-06 o 16:35, Martin Koppenhoefer pisze: > Esperanto, which you personally seem to prefer, and which is around for 133 > years, is only understood by, with most favorable estimates, 2 Million people > (compared to billions for English) and while remaining susceptible for > criticism of eurocentrism similar to English and not being “neutral” in any > way, it is completely artificial so that the “names” in Esperanto are used by > nobody. Choosing Esperanto would be a loose-loose situation, from my point of > view. Ile czasu potrzeba na naukę Esperanta a ile na naukę angielskiego? Jeżeli nazwy mają być jak najbardziej zrozumiałe dla jak największej liczby ludzi, proponuję użycie języka Interlingua. EN On 20/01/06 at 09:59, Michael Patrick writes: > > There is a 'reason'. Toponyms at all levels are established > by naming authorities and conventions at from the village > to the international level, for all sorts of domains. The > key point is, the locality decides, not outsiders - there > is no rationalization for you to give any name preference > until you have consulted with them and documented that > cooperation. Otherwise you are just using OSM as a > platform for your own flavor of 'techno-imperialism'. You are right that the toponyms (place names) are broadcast by local people, not by long distance people. The problem is that this discussion refers to the names of INTERNATIONAL OBJECTS, so who do you think has the right to name, for example, the seas of the Southern Ocean? On 20/01/06 at 09:59, Michael Patrick writes: > There aren't any 'neutral' natural languages. they > have many roots, continually incorporate words > from other languages, and some die off. YES, so let's use the planned language! Either Esperanto (because of popularity) or Interlingua (because it is understood without learning for Romance language users). On 01/20-06 at 13:45, Mario Frasca writes: > > Hi Tomek, and everybody. > > being this an English list, I'll write in English, I'm tempted to use Spanish, or Italian. my written Latin is poor. I thought again that this is an international list ... On 01/20-06 at 13:45, Mario Frasca writes: > I disagree that the tag 'name' should be removed > I'm aware of one place in the world where they have three national languages: Morocco, and what happens there is that the map uses the three national languages for all names, and the map looks so clumsy this way, in particular with the Amazigh name included (I have tested some locals on their knowledge of the written language, and I am fairly sure that 95% of Amazigh people can't even read it). quite regularly, you see people editing the 'name' tag to make it less clumsy, by removing two of the languages (those they don't like, I guess). Why can't you do the same for the seas? "Baltijas jūra / Baltijos jūra / Itämeri / Läänemeri / Morze Bałtyckie / Östersjön / Østersøen / Ostsee / Балтийское море" - no one will be injured. On 20-01-06 at 15:12, Martin Constantino – Bodin writes: > The reason why I believe the "name" tag should not be placed in such place is semantic: there is no best local name, so let's not put any. This then enables any renderrer to default to a language of their choice (or to check for other, possibly more adequate tags, like "name: UN: *"). If you put a "name" tag here, I can’t do that. I've been suggesting to create a renderrer that just uses "name: eo" if present ... just to be told right away that this is not a good solution as it would basically chooses the Esperanto name for everything instead of just these places where there is no default language. I think that having an empty "name" tag or not having a "name" tag would be a nice indication that there is not best "name" tag, and leave each renderrer use their heuristics (or just display no name). Exactly, does a buoy with the inscription "Baltic Sea" swim at 56° N18° E? No, there is simply water that Poles call the "Morze Bałtyckie", Germans "Ostsee", etc. On 01/20-06 at 15:45, Joseph Eisenberg writes: > (Note that Openstreetmap-carto does not render the names of oceans, > continents and seas, but does render the names of some large bays and > straits and islands which are relevant to this discussion) Only relations with the tag, e.g. natural = bay or water = sea are rendered on the map. On 20-01-06 at 16:35, Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > Not sure this has to be discussed, in OpenStreetMap we’re trying to represent the current state of things According to the current situation in the real world, these objects do not have any name "on earth". On 20-01-06 at 16:35, Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > Esperanto, which you personally seem to prefer, and which is around for 133 years, is only understood by, with most favorable estimates, 2 Million people (compared to billions for English) and while remaining susceptible for criticism of eurocentrism similar to English and not being "neutral" in any way, it is completely artificial so that the "names" in Esperanto are used by nobody. Choosing Esperanto would be a loose-loose situation, from my point of view. How much time do you need to learn Esperanto and how much to learn English? If the names are to be understood by as many people as possible, I suggest using the Interlingua language.
<<attachment: tomek.vcf>>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
