Hi, This proposal is well considered and it could work in my view. Even though it's a compromise (vs. solution) in the sense that it solves a rendering 'problem', it doesn't compromise the tagging rules/principles to that end. Of course it's the local mapping community that will have to make the decision to agree to this or not. I only entered the discussion when I thought I could help move the discussion forward.
By the way I don't believe the DWG acted irrationally. However their decision wasn't the best and my goal wasn't to point a finger at them but to point out a mistake so it could be corrected. On a personal level I have huge appreciation for them. And I also like the 7 day time limit. Lambert Carsten On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 16:40:18 +0100 "Andy Robinson" <ajrli...@gmail.com> wrote: > In addition to the talk list and the DWG this email is being sent to > those who have edited the name tag on node 29090735. > > Those reading the mailing list and forum will know that there is an > on-going dispute between Israeli and Palestinian folks as well as > unhappiness with the OSMF DWG. All relates to the name=tag for > Jerusalem, the default name tag shown by the project mapnik rendering. > > The facts are clear that a tit for tat dispute of the name tag went on > during 2009 and 2010. Also fact is that some discussions were held > between mappers in the region to try and reach an agreed position. It > was unfortunate that the DWG removed the name tag from the node > around the same time, before the views of those discussing the point > could communicate back. Regardless of this it is clear that there is > no full 100% agreement between the local groups or even within each > side. There have been discussions about two nodes, each holding > information separately in Hebrew and Arabic, and there have also been > suggestions of returning to a single node with Arabic, Hebrew (and > English) names on it considering the international interest in the > city. Both might work but nether offers a sustainable solution long > term, mainly because as new mappers come and go the view of different > individuals will change, and so it will be also for those viewing the > map. > > I was asked to help mediate in the dispute. Something that I have > found almost impossible as there is no basis on which to force > mediation in the first place. I have however looked at the matter and > offer the following for consideration and I would hope > implementation. It must be recognised that no solution will be > perfect. > > 1. All cities of the world have a varying demographic. Few have only > one language or faith. Jerusalem has a population of over 700,000 and > by all accounts the religious split of its people (ignoring minority > groups) is in the order of 2/3 Jewish, 1/3 Arabic. Therefore a > significant number of people will be served by having the name of > Jerusalem visible in Hebrew and also in Arabic. English might be > useful addition for the international interest in the city but that > can be argued for all major cities around the world and therefore I > don't see reason to include it in this solution. As with all other > languages the language specific name tags are always available anyway. > > 2. There appear to be three choices for the number of nodes. One node > to reflect the whole of the city, two nodes to reflect east and west, > or three nodes to reflect both of the above. I'm going to suggest the > latter, three nodes as follows: > > Node 1: With the name in Hebrew and Arabic (in that order to reflect > the demographic). Since I believe all of Jerusalem considers it to be > the capital, it can have the "capital" tag as well as the place=city > tag. This is what most viewing a zoomed out view would see on the > default mapnik rendered tiles. No is_in tag would be added to avoid > the political connotations, though a note (in English) would be added > to reflect why this tag is missing. This node would carry all the > international language specific name tags for Jerusalem as well as > any other data that is factually correct and applicable for the city > as a whole. > > Nodes 2 and 3: These would be created and maintained by each > respective group. They would be placed to the east and west of Node > 1. These nodes would not use either the capital nor the city tag but > would instead reflect the east and west sector (suburb). The is_in > tag would be controlled and decided upon by the respective group. > Other tags would be as decided upon by the relevant group but must > maintain the on-the-ground approach of factual data. > > DWG will continue to monitor but only to support the process of > maintaining the agreed solution. > > Finally, I was encouraged that at the start of the discussion process > the local mappers met and debated the issues. I would wish and > strongly urge this to continue. It will only be through further > communication and dialogue that differences will be understood. This > needs to keep to one side the politics and beliefs and focus on what > the wider community can benefit from in improving OSM for all. I'd > argue that we don't create OSM data for ourselves but instead for the > benefit of others and those that come after us. > > I do not consider that the DWG acted irrationally. A problem was > posed and in interim solution was implemented. It might have seemed a > little harsh but it is clear to me that it was never intended to be > a permanent position. > > I was asked to mediate and I've given my opinion, so perhaps I might > better describe what I have done as arbitration. If this oversteps > the mark I apologise, but in the circumstances it appears the only > thing I can do to move the matter to a speedy conclusion. > > If there is widespread descent then I will happily reconsider, > otherwise I move to implement in 7 days. > > Cheers > Andy (blackadder) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
