Hi, welcome to OSM.
Is the added name real?
JJ (1918500580), v3

I do not think Brussels is a suitable comparison here.

In Brussels, bilingual name=* values reflect an officially bilingual area where street/place names are actually established and signposted in both French and Dutch. That is different from adding a generated transliteration or script conversion to name=*.

If these Libyan village names are genuinely used locally in both Arabic and Amazigh/Tifinagh, please provide concrete evidence for each place, such as signage, official/local gazetteers, or other reliable local sources. But the Brussels practice does not justify constructing combined name=* values from general transliteration rules.

The issue is not whether bilingual names are ever allowed in OSM. The issue is whether these specific combined Arabic + Tifinagh forms are real, locally used names for these specific settlements, or just generated transliterations.

Hi,
this changeset appears to apply the same naming pattern to several towns/villages, adding Tifinagh/Amazigh names and general transliterations.

Could you please clarify whether each object was manually reviewed one by one, or whether this is a mechanical/semi-automated/systematic edit based on a list, script, transliteration rule, or external dataset?

As far as I understand OSM naming practice, pure transliterations should not be added as name=* or language-specific name:xx=* values unless they are real names actually used in that language or on the ground. name=* should reflect the primary real-world/local name, and name:xx=* should contain a name genuinely used in that language, not an automatically generated transliteration.

Could you please response to your commented changesets? Thanks.

Could you please response to your commented changesets? Thanks.

Could you please response to your commented changesets? Thanks.

Thanks for the discussion. I found another source that seems relevant here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220302150300/https://www.libyaobserver.ly/news/libyan-government-divides-country-18-provinces

This article reports that the Libyan government divided the country into provinces, and for this area it lists administrative units such as Gheryan, Zintan and Nalut. It does not list “Nafusa Mountains” as the name of an administrative province/district.

So this source does not support renaming the administrative boundary LY-JG / Jabal al Gharbi District to “Nafusa Mountains”. If the 2022 administrative reform is relevant for OSM, it would rather suggest that the current administrative boundaries may need to be checked or updated according to the new province structure. But that would be a separate mapping issue and should not be mixed with the geographic/mountain-region name “Nafusa Mountains”.

In my opinion, the current changeset applies the name of a geographic region/mountain range to an administrative boundary, and this source does not justify that.

Thank you for the detailed reply, I appreciate it.

Just to clarify: I am not a local contributor in Libya, and I am also not a specialist in multilingual name tagging, especially in a context involving Arabic and Amazigh/Tifinagh names.

I noticed a larger number of name-related changes on important objects, so I thought it was appropriate to leave a changeset comment and ask for clarification.

Best regards, Pascal

Thank you for the detailed reply, I appreciate it.

Just to clarify: I am not a local contributor in Libya, and I am also not a specialist in multilingual name tagging, especially in a context involving Arabic and Amazigh/Tifinagh names.

I noticed a larger number of name-related changes on important objects, so I thought it was appropriate to leave a changeset comment and ask for clarification.

Best regards, Pascal

Thank you for the detailed reply, I appreciate it.

Just to clarify: I am not a local contributor in Libya, and I am also not a specialist in multilingual name tagging, especially in a context involving Arabic and Amazigh/Tifinagh names.

I noticed a larger number of name-related changes on important objects, so I thought it was appropriate to leave a changeset comment and ask for clarification.

Best regards, Pascal

Hello, and welcome to OSM. Could you please explain the reason for deleting these driveway/service ways?

This changeset deletes several ways that were tagged as private/service driveways. In OSM, private driveways and private roads can still be mapped when they exist on the ground; they should normally be kept with appropriate tags such as highway=service, service=driveway, and access=private, rather than deleted just because they are private.

If these driveways no longer physically exist, or were clearly incorrect/misplaced, please mention the evidence/source. Otherwise, could you please restore the deleted driveways and keep the access restrictions instead? Thank you.

Hello, and welcome to OSM. Could you please explain the reason for deleting these driveway/service ways?

This changeset deletes several ways that were tagged as private/service driveways. In OSM, private driveways and private roads can still be mapped when they exist on the ground; they should normally be kept with appropriate tags such as highway=service, service=driveway, and access=private, rather than deleted just because they are private.

If these driveways no longer physically exist, or were clearly incorrect/misplaced, please mention the evidence/source. Otherwise, could you please restore the deleted driveways and keep the access restrictions instead? Thank you.

Hello, and welcome to OSM. Could you please explain the reason for deleting these driveway/service ways?

This changeset deletes several ways that were tagged as private/service driveways. In OSM, private driveways and private roads can still be mapped when they exist on the ground; they should normally be kept with appropriate tags such as highway=service, service=driveway, and access=private, rather than deleted just because they are private.

If these driveways no longer physically exist, or were clearly incorrect/misplaced, please mention the evidence/source. Otherwise, could you please restore the deleted driveways and keep the access restrictions instead? Thank you.

Hello, and welcome to OSM. Could you please explain the reason for deleting these driveway/service ways?

This changeset deletes several ways that were tagged as private/service driveways. In OSM, private driveways and private roads can still be mapped when they exist on the ground; they should normally be kept with appropriate tags such as highway=service, service=driveway, and access=private, rather than deleted just because they are private.

If these driveways no longer physically exist, or were clearly incorrect/misplaced, please mention the evidence/source. Otherwise, could you please restore the deleted driveways and keep the access restrictions instead? Thank you.

Hello, and welcome to OSM. Could you please explain the reason for deleting these driveway/service ways?

This changeset deletes several ways that were tagged as private/service driveways. In OSM, private driveways and private roads can still be mapped when they exist on the ground; they should normally be kept with appropriate tags such as highway=service, service=driveway, and access=private, rather than deleted just because they are private.

If these driveways no longer physically exist, or were clearly incorrect/misplaced, please mention the evidence/source. Otherwise, could you please restore the deleted driveways and keep the access restrictions instead? Thank you.

Hello, and welcome to OSM. Could you please explain the reason for deleting these driveway/service ways?

This changeset deletes several ways that were tagged as private/service driveways. In OSM, private driveways and private roads can still be mapped when they exist on the ground; they should normally be kept with appropriate tags such as highway=service, service=driveway, and access=private, rather than deleted just because they are private.

If these driveways no longer physically exist, or were clearly incorrect/misplaced, please mention the evidence/source. Otherwise, could you please restore the deleted driveways and keep the access restrictions instead? Thank you.

Hello, and welcome to OSM. Could you please explain the reason for deleting these driveway/service ways?

This changeset deletes several ways that were tagged as private/service driveways. In OSM, private driveways and private roads can still be mapped when they exist on the ground; they should normally be kept with appropriate tags such as highway=service, service=driveway, and access=private, rather than deleted just because they are private.

If these driveways no longer physically exist, or were clearly incorrect/misplaced, please mention the evidence/source. Otherwise, could you please restore the deleted driveways and keep the access restrictions instead? Thank you.

Hello, and welcome to OSM. Could you please explain the reason for deleting these driveway/service ways?

This changeset deletes several ways that were tagged as private/service driveways. In OSM, private driveways and private roads can still be mapped when they exist on the ground; they should normally be kept with appropriate tags such as highway=service, service=driveway, and access=private, rather than deleted just because they are private.

If these driveways no longer physically exist, or were clearly incorrect/misplaced, please mention the evidence/source. Otherwise, could you please restore the deleted driveways and keep the access restrictions instead? Thank you.

Hello, and welcome to OSM. Could you please explain the reason for deleting these driveway/service ways?

This changeset deletes several ways that were tagged as private/service driveways. In OSM, private driveways and private roads can still be mapped when they exist on the ground; they should normally be kept with appropriate tags such as highway=service, service=driveway, and access=private, rather than deleted just because they are private.

If these driveways no longer physically exist, or were clearly incorrect/misplaced, please mention the evidence/source. Otherwise, could you please restore the deleted driveways and keep the access restrictions instead? Thank you.

Hello,
could you please discuss these edits with the Libya/local OSM community before making further mass changes?

This changeset changes the main name=* of places to combined Tifinagh + Arabic labels. The source is given as “local knowledge; indigenous toponym restoration; Amazigh heritage”, but for OSM the main name=* should normally reflect the current common/default local name of the feature, not a combined multilingual or restored/historical form unless that exact form is verifiably used on the ground and accepted by the local mapping community.

Adding Amazigh/Tifinagh names in suitable language-specific tags such as name:ber=* / name:zgh=* may be appropriate if the values are verifiable. However, please do not replace established name=* values with combined-script names based on toponym restoration alone.

Could you please provide clear, verifiable sources and community consensus for the changed main names, and revert the name=* changes where the combined form is not the current commonly used name?

Thank you.