A7K3B's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 183419716 | felipeeugenio, First, I understand and apologize, I'll stop immediately. That you for speaking excellent english where I am ignorant of Spanish. However I would like to explain my intent: A map name can do three things:
In my observation, 2. is uncommon, 1. is the legal object, and 3. is an often desperately needed, ommited rendering into which 2. is easily included. These are not automated; I've selected various translation options and chosen the best to represent the local language meaning. I have been trying to translate place names in my home region, Colorado, EEUU. If you set the map language to say, Japanese, it is immediately apparent that the region is simply illegible to a Japanese speaker. At best they recognize the latin script and the sounds, but the names themselves are meaningless. The `name=` tag of course should remain the principal, actual, legal on-the-ground name. However, `name=lang` tags can be a pathway to make regions meaningful to foreign speakers. To translate the map as though a book. name:<lang> should not be limited to attested exonyms. It should contain the best reader-facing equivalent of the feature’s name in that language, while name=* preserves the actual local designation. Where an attested exonym exists, use it. Where none exists, semantic translation is preferable to opaque transliteration for transparently meaningful names. What renderers (ex. CoMaps) do is allow individuals to set their language, and then show them the map in their language. However, they always will reveal the true `name=` of the Point of Interest. I was toying with Malalcahuello because it is analogous to my own home and I was interested to see what the reverse of my intent would be. I understand that "The Angels" would be absurd, but most of the world is not well known, globalized, and pre-contextualized. Most of it is small towns in the mountains that are voids of meaning to most of mankind. A7K3B |