Changeset: 61766931
Leningradskaya Oblast
Closed by Dinamik
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (14066 ru) |
---|
Discussion
-
Comment from assenizator0
You pervert the names of water bodies. You begining the war of edits.
If you do not stop I'll have to contact DWG. The report about your wrecking activities has already been sent.
-
Comment from woodpeck
Dear Dinamik, could you please explain why you have added the word "озеро" to the names of these lakes. It does not seem to be a part of the the proper name?
Also, please use real changeset comments (an appropriate changeset comment here would have been "change the names of Вуокса and Судаковское"). The comment "Leningradskaya Oblast" is useless because it does not describe your intentions and doesn't help anyone reviewing your edits. (Of course you may write your changeset comments in Russian if you edit in Russia.)
-
Comment from Dinamik
Dear colleagues, I’ll give a comment – sorry, if it will be a little bit short and/or not completely full. Your questions are welcome.
assenizator0, let us not to misinform them. You changed (modified or deleted) a hundreds of names waterbodies during a few days without preliminary discussion. When I manually correct a few of objects (returned name) and wrote you messages (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61762833, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61764808) with links to documentation (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C#.D0.9E , https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:natural%3Dwater ), you wrote that didn’t understand me and immediately wrote a report about by my "wrecking activities". I think, you guess, that your actions against rules are not the best. It even looks like, that new account was created specially for modifying waterbodies. It's and interesting idea - they can think, that you had never heard about previous agreements and had never ignored many invitations for discussions, because you are a newcomer. Please, stop making new changing of names of waterbodies before discussion end. It would be nice, if you return database to stable version.
woodpeck, the situation is not so complicated. There is Russian tradition/agreement not to shorten names of waterbodies and this agreement is documented: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C#.D0.9E , https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:natural%3Dwater ). assenizator0 modified names (in a contravention of this agreement) of many waterbodies during a few days in semi-automatic mode, when I returned some names to their stable state, wrote a comments and invited to discussion, he immediately wrote a report to you. I believe, that in such situation he should firstly try to change agreement during conversations and only after that (in case of successful dialogs) he will be able to change names according to new agreement. Now his edits oppose current agreement, he doesn't try even to start discussion - I think, it is a violation of community rules.
Let my try to explain you the origin of such agreement.
a) Names of waterbodies in Russian don't have strict corellation with their status in physical geography. Natural waterbody (lake in physical geography) can be called "пруд", "озеро", "водохранилище", "лиман", "ерик", "море"... Such words are parts of historically existing names.
b) Names without such words look especially ugly, when main words in names have form of adjective. For example, word "Судаковское" claim some another word, because "ое" is a words ending of adjective, which shows, that there is a main noun after adjective. Even spellcheckers can mark such single words as a mistakes, because noun is implied in case of adjective.
c) Order of words has meaning in Russian names. For example, "Петухов пруд" и "пруд Петухов" are different names: first means whose? - Petuh's, second means in honor of whom? - of Petuh. These words have different declensions.
d) Such tradition is not unique for Russian language and/or Russia, you can easily find analogous names all over the world: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/325753188 (Lago Enol, not Enol), https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34145701 (Бело језеро, not Бело), https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/50959610 (Odlezelské jezero, not Odlezelské), https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7337636 (Lac à l'Anglais, not l'Anglais), https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40850063 (Lagoa Verde, not Verde), https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4580524 (Bassenthwaite Lake, not Bassenthwaite), s://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/87400 (Lago Guaíba, not Guaíba).
So I really believe, that database should be returned to one-week-old state (stable state before unagreed edits) and user, who wants to change current agreement, should participate to discussion for changing of current agreement.
P. S. Thank you for you prompt about comments. However, it is not all as easy as it sounds. First user modified hundreds of objects against a current agreement in semi-automatic mode during a few days with common comment assenization - and it takes a weeks to return database to stable state in manual mode. Unique comments increase this duration to months and years. Comments' recommendation will work only in case of appliance for all users and all edits. I wrote public comments for user (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61762833, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61764808), the goal of edits (return to normal state) is clear.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
at first "Don't tag for the renderer"(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer)
secondly. let us not to misinform them - there was never any agreement on compulsory writing of a generic name with a proper name in the russian community. incorrect information was entered on the indicated pages by the user cannabis from the words of the user AMDmi3 about how he does it. no discussions at this point was not. attempts to legalize the data entry to be beautifully displayed on the map, through discussions ended with nothing. moreover, the majority of active participants both in the forum and in the telegram chat are against this practice.
- Comment from Артём Крюковский
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=RU:%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C&diff=next&oldid=796220
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=RU%3A%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C&type=revision&diff=796218&oldid=793601
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=RU%3ATag%3Anatural%3Dwater&type=revision&diff=796228&oldid=777632
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=264929#p264929 -
Comment from Артём Крюковский
"озеро Вуокса" and "Судаковское озеро" NOT CORRECTED form of name. corrected form is "Вуокса" and "Судаковское" ONLY.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
используя родовые имена вместе с именем собственным, ты во-первых вводишь в заблуждение о том, как водный объект называется на самом деле. и во вторых, делаешь невозможной обработку данных по этомк признаку сторонними сервисами.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
using generic names along with the proper name, you first mislead about how the water object is actually called. and secondly, you make it impossible to process data on this basis by third-party services.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
In addition, if you incorrectly place local or alternative names in the main tag for names, you are also misleading about the actual name of the object and information is lost as to what type these names are. moreover - this or that object, may not have names other than local or alternative and this should also be indicated.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
on this basis the database is assenized. and you return the data back to the dirty state, incorrectly naming it "stable version". =/
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
я много лет занимаюсь наименованиями водных объектов. работаю с огромным числом источников. и в отличие от подобных тебе не вношу данные по желанию левой пятки, а привожу их в порядок.
i have been engaged in the names of water bodies for many years. i work with a huge number of sources. and unlike the like you do not contribute data at the request of the left heel, and put them in order.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
во всех базах, а до этого списках топонимов - отдельно указывается наименование и отдельно его тип. а уже в процессе обработки этих данных формируется подпись для того или иного объекта.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
in all databases, and before that lists of place names - the name and its type are separately indicated. and already in the process of processing these data, a signature is formed for this or that object.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
OSM is primarily a data set, but certainly not a map.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
и тебе с твоими взглядами надо отправляться, либо в викимапию, либо в НЯК.
and you need to go with your views, either to the wikimapia or to the YMP.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
dixi
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
описался. не родовое наименование, а родовое слово, конечно же.
i errated. not a generic name, but a generic word, of course.
-
Comment from Dinamik
Артём Крюковский (if it is better to use your another name, please, tell me), you showed, that note was added 6 years ago in reference to forum message due to hidrography tradition. Why do you insist on deletion information, if discussions about these deletions ended with nothing? "Your" pages about names don't contradict with "my" pages: imagine 2 people, who look at some waterbody. One of them asks: "How is this waterbody called?". Second gives an answer: "This is Судаковское озеро". Answer "This is Судаковское" will be not full, because it leads to further question "Судаковское озеро? Судаковское море? Судаковское водохранилище?". Other opinions about "Вуокса" can exist, because it has noun-form, but word "Судаковское", evidently, has adjective-form and claimes using with main word. Please, explain your phrase about misleading about how the water object is actually called when using generic word. Are you sure, that Судаковское озеро can't have name Судаковское озеро?). I said "stable version" in context of rules of community editing: if new edit leads to opposition, it is recommended to return data to version, which have existed for some time (this version is called stable version), and data changing person should institute a discussion. Names are often divided in databases for sorting purposes - I can suppose, that you met such "old-type" databases. I think, tag sorting_name can help you: we can put "main part" of name to this tag. I understand your idea about construction names from parts, but such actions shouldn't go to ridiculous lengths: there is no unified algorithm of creation "full" names from "main" parts and "status" parts in Russian language because of its irregularity. We can add additional information about structure of name by tags sorting_name and some another (which are the best?), but the only method to write name correctly, oddly to say, is to write name to name tag). You recommended me to go to Wikimapia, but this is not the solution: tomorrow you can go to Wikimapia and say, that I have to go to some another project, because I don't like some my actions. Do not chase me all over the internet - let's better create discussion substiantially. The solution in projects with joint editing is normal discussion. The problem is not in different opinions, the problem is in persevering edits with algorithm "I will change half of an thousand objects during a few days, immediately write an abuse, when someone will try to cancel my edits, claim such reverts as wrecking behaviour, say, that no-consensus-status automatically means my righteousness". I think, we should expect, that world is not only black or white, the consensus decision may be more complicated (for example, with different rules for noun-form names and adjective-form names). But discussion is possible only when other people expect, that world can be black and white.
A questions about local and alternative names can be solved individually, I even don't remember recent cases, when I put local or alternative name to name tag. Perhaps, I though, that it was name and you though, that it is only loc_name - I repeate, that such cases should be solved individually. It is another local question from global question about naming recommendations.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
lake Судаковcкое is named "Судаковcкое", but not "Судаковcкое озеро". ONLY.
legitimate source: http://docs.cntd.ru/document/8456895 #2995
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
when discussing this issue in a telegram chat, many of the most active participants of the OSM speak out against inclusion with the name of their own generic word, if it is not part of the proper name.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
allegedly "hydrographic tradition" follows from the instructions for the designation of elements of hydrography on maps. no more. but at the same time, a GENERIC WORD IS NOT A PART OF THE PROPER NAME INDICATED BEFORE NAME and in the form of a reduction.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
but the OSM is not a map.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
with you it is impossible, that either to discuss, because if something white you will persistently prove that it is black. simply because you can not see otherwise.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
and I repeat (and emphasize this):
using generic names along with the proper name, you first mislead about how the water object is actually called. and secondly, you make it impossible to process data on this basis by third-party services. -
Comment from Артём Крюковский
heck. again i'm errated.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
woodpeck, do you have something to say?
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
woodpeck, neither here, nor in other edits of this user, "озеро" is not part of the name.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
here is an example from my practice of collecting local toponyms of water bodies (hydronyms). for example this lake: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/42606880, to my question "what is this lake called" all the answers were "Щучье"("Shchuch'ye"), not "Щучье озеро" and not "озеро Щучье".
-
Comment from Dinamik
This is an official list of objects - it follows some specific rules due to sorting necessity. Are you really want to say, that, for example, "Белое 4" is normal name?). Perhaps, the issue is in used terminology? When you say "generic word" it looks like some separate word, but if you say "status part", it will look more "closer". Russian toponyms consist of main part, status part, numerical order and explaining word. Construction of full name depends on unique tradition of each toponym - so it can be done only in manual mode and full name consist of all parts, which are included to name. Many people found agreements with me during work in joint projects: local and global, temporarily and permanent - why do you think, that you are the single, who can't do it? You shouldn't think so badly about you. In any case, I have a fab fabulous idea: you can ask any of your many friends in social networks, whom you are several times made reference to, to conduct the discussion. You emphasized that giving name "Судаковское озеро" to Судаковское озеро is misleading, but it is inclear, why. Could you, please, explain tasks of your third-based service and principles of work? I suppose, that the solutions can be found (for example, supressing of "unwanted" word in post-processing, using tags sorting_name, gvr:code and others). Answers for your questions about lake correlate with the questions. For example, if you ask people "What is this prospekt called?" (asking about Nevskiy prospekt - big street in St. Petersburg), they will answer you "Nevskiy" to shorten the answer, because you previously showed you knowledge about prospekt. If you ask "What is this passage called?", they will answer you "Nevskiy prospekt". So we should appreciate answers for question "What is it?" or "What is this waterbody called?" P. S. Артём Крюковский, let me repeat: tradition/agreement about names of waterbodies was reached and marked not yesterday, not month ago and even not year ago. Many years peoples used it - discussion is necessary for changing tradition. If you have so many supporters, it shouldn't be a problem. But you continue to claim agreement as unlawful and continue bellicose actions for changing names and deletion information about agreement reached.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
woodpeck?
-
Comment from Dinamik
Артём Крюковский, are planning to give answers or you are just planning to write comments to me in automatic mode? I've asked you to cancel your automatic edits of hundreds of waterbodies and start discussion essentially. My insignificant manual reverts to stable versions of objects are a drop in the bucket. It is normal situation in joint projects, when objects are reverted to stable versions during discussions. And I ask you once more: please, describe the problems with you OSM-origin base. I think, it can be solved not but cutting OSM-base, but by normal post-processing during import.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
this not "stable". this bullshiting of toponims. you edits for render, not for dataset. you must gone from OSM.
-
Comment from Dinamik
As I remember, I've already told, that "stable" in joint projects doesn't mean "ideal" or "the best": it means "version before active controversy". If this "bullshited" version existed long time, it will be not a big deal if it is around few weeks more in such state during discussion. If we say, that multiply edits of hundreds of objects during a few days with name changing and without preliminary discussion is normal, we will make base unstable. Banishment of opponent from project is not a solution, the solution is desire of finding consensus. Please, describe your problems with importing from OSM for finding appropriate algorithms/tags.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
Edits for render.
-
Comment from Dinamik
Adding of normal/common/natural name is not a tagging for render. Tag name is designated, curios to relate, for name. P. S. You wrote several hundreds comments "Edits for render" during a few hours. Shouldn't one detailed answer from human be better than several hundreds automatically written identical short phrases?
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
you corrupt the proper name. especially for render of osm.org
-
Comment from Dinamik
I think, that there are more reasons to say, that you try to move database to some specific state, which corresponds to your special exporting software, because you use non-standard variant of tagging. Let's try to find appropriate algorithm, which allows to export data without neccessity to modifying it. Please, describe your software and technical problems.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
I do not export. I improve tagging and correct errors in the data. In addition, I am adding new data to the fact that OSM is a data set that is used by many different people for various purposes and that the data must be entered so as to help them with this with minimal effort on their part without resorting to refined methods or refusing to use data , because it is impossible to do so. and this is not to mention the fact that the data entered must be as accurate as possible.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
damn.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
и это не говоря уже о том, что вносимые данные должны быть максимально насколько это возможно точными.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
addition for woodpeck and other/
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62103990
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62121918 -
Comment from Dinamik
You wrote, that the data must be entered so as to help them with this with minimal effort on their part without resorting to refined methods or refusing to use data, but you separate common name to different tags and propose to glue information from different tags to get normal human-readable name.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
Yes. Because it will be correct and reflect the reality. Since then the name of the object will not be distorted.
Besides. At least so everyone will see how the river is really called, and those who want to sign it on their map in accordance with Russian standards and traditions will be able to do it. Those who want to use the natural position of words, can also do this with this method, if they want.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
I do not call to delete always the generic word. You are those cases when it even coincides with the type of object, but is part of the proper name - it must be in the tag name=*. But if this is not part of the proper name, it should not be there.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
damn. i'm errated.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
You are those cases -> In those cases
-
Comment from Dinamik
I propose to specify, when we can say, that generic word is part of proper name. What can you say about asseveration, that generic word is part of proper name, when name has form of adjective or form of noun in genitive case, and is not part of proper name, when name has form of noun in nominative case?
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
incorrect assertion
-
Comment from Dinamik
Could you, please, clarify your objection? Is the reason in fact, that you don't see grammatical difference between name in form of adjective and name in form of noun (you don't feel it by your linguistic intuition)? Or in fact, that you trust only registers with short form of names?
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
you confuse the toponyms with their use. even in the form of a noun, a the toponym can contain a generic word, i.e. consist of a pair of separate nouns. in fact, in the toponymic card only the name in full form is displayed - i.e. If the generic word is not an integral part of the name, the full form of the toponym will not contain it. in the same way in toponymic dictionaries.
-
Comment from Dinamik
I think, the origin of our dispute is in different understanding of idea of the common default name (which corresponds to name). The commond default name should be natural, comprehensible, humanistical. Adjective without noun is not comprehensible in Russian (although situation with settlements is somewhat different). Lonely adjecive is intrinsic for official, meager speach. We should think about official_name for such expressions.
-
Comment from Lesovichok
Во-первых, зачем вы тут на английском срач развели? Во-вторых, Артём, ты в корне не прав, потому что согласно правилам проекта русское сообщество для своей территории решило, что так правильно: статусную часть (озеро) делать частью тега name. Вызвано это тем, что может Быть "Гусиное озеро", а может быть "Озеро Янисъярви". Сказать "Янисъярви озеро" или "Байкал озеро" язык ни у кого не повернётся. Это реалии нашего непростого языка и с ними надо мириться. Если тебе не нравится такой порядок вещей, то надо:
1. Вынести это на публичное обсуждение согласно правилам.
2. Предложить дополнительный тег или схему, которая отражала бы где именно надо ставить статусную часть (до или и после названия)
3. Уговорить разработчиков Мапника учесть твои хотелки и поменять способ обработки имён на территории именно России (пысы: это утопия). -
Comment from Артём Крюковский
Dinamik, official_name тут не применимо.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
Lesovichok, на английском, потому, что предполагается что тему отслеживают иноязычные участники в частности из DWG.
русскоязычное сообщество на этот счёт ничего не решало, поскольку полноценного обсуждения ни разу так и не состоялось. один чушь ляпнул(причём опираясь на то, как на генштабе делают), другой это перенёс в вику.
и тем самым: а) искажается имя собственное, б) ограничивается его использование.
1. ну и обсуждайте.
2. уже есть.
3. причём тут мапник? -
Comment from Dinamik
Артём Крюковский, sorting_name?
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
а это тут с чего. тем более даже для улиц для которых он вводился от него отказываются.
-
Comment from Dinamik
С того, что как раз в этот тег можно загонять названия, усечённые до формы, позволяющей осуществлять их машинную обработку.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
тем более даже для улиц для которых он вводился от него отказываются.
-
Comment from Артём Крюковский
значит, не очень то и помогает даже в этом. =В
-
Comment from assenizator5
и это не усечённое, а полное имя собственное - в данных случаях "озеро" не является его частью.
-
Comment from Dinamik
Не хотите использовать sorting_name для улиц, можете использовать для водоёмов. Нет технических противоречий.
Вы писали, что использование названий без отброшенного родового слова приводит к появлению проблем с последующим анализом таких названий (это я и назвал машинной обработкой). Если Вам не нужен sorting_name для улиц, т. к. Вы умеете подавлять в их названиях родовые слова, то сможете подавить их и в названиях водных объектов. Если наличие родового слова вызывает проблемы, то и для улиц Вам понадобится sorting_name (или аналогичный тег).
Что интересно, тег name в OSM используется не для имени собственного (англ. proper noun), а для именования (англ. naming).
Relations (2)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |