On 29/05/2015, SomeoneElse <li...@atownsend.org.uk> wrote: > I've used name:signed=no (though this is by no means an accepted tag, > and if anyone can come up with a more accepted version that does the > same job I'm all ears). > > Maybe something like "name:signed=en;cy" might solve the "name > verifiability" problem for Abergavenny?
I'll keep those in mind next time I survey such an area. I'm not a fan of (un)signed=* (the most common in tagginfo) because their meaning is not obvious enough. "name:signed=en;cy" would be a first and open the multiple-value can of worms. But name:signed=yes/no has 161 uses in taginfo, and name:CC:signed=yes/no seems like an obvious extension. >> What's wrong with "name" ? What's the UK policy on the content of >> "name" for places with Welsh and English names ? If you want to see >> Welsh names as often as possible but still make the local name more >> prominent, use "local name (welsh name if different)" in your map >> generating script. > > The problem here is that there are two* equally valid and correct > "name"s (in on-the-ground verifiable terms) for Abergavenny. Some communities pick one of the names for the "name" tag and others put both in. In either case, it should be sufficient for following directions. In this case we have name=Abergavenny, so local mappers favored the english name. While it's not necessary for following directions (use "name" for that), I agree that it would be nice to know which languages are signposted and verifyable on the ground. IMHO a signpost has never been a requirement for name:CC (or even name actually). Which leads to the "name:signed" discussion above. Would that cover all the usecases and make people happy ? _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
