Ciao Martin, no need to CC me, thank you :) On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 02:40:55 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2009/6/14 David Paleino <d.pale...@gmail.com>: > > [..] > > > > I agree that moving it from "landuse=historic_center" to something not > > involving history is a good thing, but also "centre_zone" has its own issues > > (basically, the "centre" terminology might not be appropriate in many > > cases). > > > > Ideas? Comments? > > When I wrote the proposal for centre_zone I was also thinking about an > alternative named "core_zone" or "core" but I was not sure if this > attempt to translate German into English would describe to a native > person what I actually meant. That'd be good, IMHO. I'm Italian, and I can understand what "core_zone" would be. > LEO (translation-service) proposed centre_zone for the German Term > "Kerngebiet", which is the appropriate term in German urban planning > legislation (BauNVO=Baunutzungsverordnung). From the Collins dictionary: http://dictionary.reverso.net/german-english/Kerngebiet "heartland". Reading the Wikipedia page for it though, it refers to "central areas of a country", rather than a city. Also, translating to Italian the wiki page for Kerngebiet, it gets translated to "Nucleo", which is exactly "Core" in English. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=it&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerngebiet Although landuse=core (or core_zone) is IMHO not immediately understandable, this would be the better choice. So, should we start vote on that proposal? Any other discussion needed? Ciao, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
