User talk:Lepus
Hello Lepus, I have seen that you added documentation for the key place:CN=* with the definition: "used on places to indicate the type of administration in China". If this is about administrative entities, I believe it would be better to use something like this on objects with the tags boundary=administrative and admin_level=*, and eventually use subtags for the specific kind of administrative organisation rather than "place", if further distinctions of administrative entities have to be made. --Dieterdreist (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Chinese settlements are closely related to administrative divisions, which determine their scale and importance. Even the name of a city/town/village is customarily suffixed with the administrative division. And place=* is not enough to correspond to the five de facto levels of administrative divisions. We will consider using admin_type=* or similar tags on administrative boundaries, but now most places in China lack the boundaries of township level and below, and there are still many places where it is difficult to determine a suitable tagging scheme. Therefore, this tag will be useful especially in these situations. Lepus (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- If it is reliably in the name, you might be interested in these tags as well: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/name:suffix and this variant has significant usage: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/name:prefix The place:CN tag also has significant use: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/place:CN but the English values will require a translation table to get to the actual value (in Chinese). —Dieterdreist (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- name:suffix=* seems to be a supplement to the name without a suffix, and the name already has a suffix in China. Another problem is that the same suffix may correspond to different levels. I have considered canceling the suffix, but there may be townships and towns with the same name in a county, and similar situations exist at the village level. It is not appropriate to cancel the suffix at least below the township level. --Lepus (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- If the suffix is part of the name, it should be kept - question is where. You could consider several possibilities how to deal with it, e.g. put the long version in official_name=* and the shorter version in name=*, or put the name with the suffix in name=* and the name without the suffix (if it still makes sense and is used like this) in short_name=*. From my understanding, you could also have the suffix both in the name AND in the name:suffix=*, so that apps can decide, in case this makes any sense, to remove the suffix from the name in certain displaying conditions. After all these are just examples how similar situations are dealt with in other places, as a last resort, if established methods are not applicable, a place:CN=* tag could make sense (but then I would expect values in chinese and not in English). Another possibility could be adding more values to place=*, if the existing hierarchy and structure is not sufficient for your case. From what I understood, this is probably more about administrative entities then about settlements in the place sense. --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- The short_name=* indeed needs to be added for specific display situations. Currently, there are very few places where this tag is added in China. I will add it in batches and check it manually. I do not intend to use name:suffix=* to achieve this function because there are some special cases that are not purely composed of names and suffixes. There was a discussion about place:CN=* in Chinese or English, but some users think that the Chinese value is not conducive to the identification of non-Chinese users, so the English name is still retained. place=* does need a value upon the neighborhood-quarter-suburb so that the municipal district in China has a suitable tag, but there seems to be no approved proposal. In my opinion, the place sense is subjective, while the administrative division is objective. In many cases, it is not easy to distinguish whether an administrative division has a sense of place. If most of the administrative divisions are tagged as place, it will be confusing for a few not to be mapped because of this. If the administrative division tends to be stable, and it has a jurisdiction area corresponding to the settlement pattern, the place sense may also be generated based on this. On the other hand, without the support of administrative divisions, places may gradually be forgotten, especially in the rapidly expanding Chinese cities, many places will disappear as a result. ——Lepus (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, you will always have opposition for any decision, but if this is about an official chinese classification, explicitly in a China namespace ("CN"), using the original term would make most sense to me. If English is used, I would really just add another place value for the thing you are missing in the current system ("place=municipal_district"). --Dieterdreist (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- If you think that place:CN=* should be in Chinese, you are welcome to post your views here. Otherwise, if there is no support from the majority, the modification is inappropriate. Sorry for not letting you understand, I just want you to know more and then make judgments. One thing I want you to know is that in China, the name of an administrative division can refer to an administrative division or its capital (applicable to municipalities, counties and townships). The map of China also complies with this. The "municipal district" is just the term I want to clarify its status (although it is a literal translation of "市辖区"). Its official and general translation is "district". If you add a value in place=*, I hope it is universal, rather than just suitable for a certain country. Unfortunately, I did not find a word in English that means a larger city zoning than suburb. place=district seems to be discouraged due to lack of common definition. This may not be much better than tagging place=city. ——Lepus (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- I would not worry about the applicability in other countries, there are surely similar entities also in other countries, as long as the tag place=municipal_district is well defined and applied consistently in China, you do not have to worry about other countries (which will likely show up anyway as soon as it is proposed). For the “named part of a city containing suburbs” place, if there isn’t a good term you could use something verbose like place=urban_district or descriptive like place=city_part or “fraction”? In the end it depends on the definition, there is no 1:1 logics for the suburb term in natural language and tag either. Introducing a new key with all values from place duplicated just to address a single missing value or two in “place” seems overkill. Another option could be to introduce sublevels for the place objects with a qualifying tag, e.g. suburb=district? Or simply add admin_level? If these are cultural places, they could well overlap and hierarchy isn’t necessarily clear, while for administrative hierarchies things are usually defined and admin_level is our tag for it.—Dieterdreist (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe we can give place=city_part our own definition, but I am not sure if this definition without natural language foundation will be recognized by most people, and the most critical point is to get support from the renderer. The same value is not equal to the same meaning. A place=town node can be an administrative town, township, or subdistrict. For the township level and above, we have used the capital=* to represent the administrative level (since the admin_level=* is not applicable to place), place:CN=* can be regarded as its subdivision. To be honest, in China, I’m not sure if there are many cultural places outside of administrative divisions. What I can be sure of is that they will not appear on the map today. The common practice on Chinese maps is to mark cities of the corresponding level in the government locations of administrative divisions. Regardless of the pros and cons of this approach, this is already the habit of most Chinese mappers. I think it’s better to have standards than nothing. ——Lepus (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- I would not worry about the applicability in other countries, there are surely similar entities also in other countries, as long as the tag place=municipal_district is well defined and applied consistently in China, you do not have to worry about other countries (which will likely show up anyway as soon as it is proposed). For the “named part of a city containing suburbs” place, if there isn’t a good term you could use something verbose like place=urban_district or descriptive like place=city_part or “fraction”? In the end it depends on the definition, there is no 1:1 logics for the suburb term in natural language and tag either. Introducing a new key with all values from place duplicated just to address a single missing value or two in “place” seems overkill. Another option could be to introduce sublevels for the place objects with a qualifying tag, e.g. suburb=district? Or simply add admin_level? If these are cultural places, they could well overlap and hierarchy isn’t necessarily clear, while for administrative hierarchies things are usually defined and admin_level is our tag for it.—Dieterdreist (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- If you think that place:CN=* should be in Chinese, you are welcome to post your views here. Otherwise, if there is no support from the majority, the modification is inappropriate. Sorry for not letting you understand, I just want you to know more and then make judgments. One thing I want you to know is that in China, the name of an administrative division can refer to an administrative division or its capital (applicable to municipalities, counties and townships). The map of China also complies with this. The "municipal district" is just the term I want to clarify its status (although it is a literal translation of "市辖区"). Its official and general translation is "district". If you add a value in place=*, I hope it is universal, rather than just suitable for a certain country. Unfortunately, I did not find a word in English that means a larger city zoning than suburb. place=district seems to be discouraged due to lack of common definition. This may not be much better than tagging place=city. ——Lepus (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, you will always have opposition for any decision, but if this is about an official chinese classification, explicitly in a China namespace ("CN"), using the original term would make most sense to me. If English is used, I would really just add another place value for the thing you are missing in the current system ("place=municipal_district"). --Dieterdreist (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- The short_name=* indeed needs to be added for specific display situations. Currently, there are very few places where this tag is added in China. I will add it in batches and check it manually. I do not intend to use name:suffix=* to achieve this function because there are some special cases that are not purely composed of names and suffixes. There was a discussion about place:CN=* in Chinese or English, but some users think that the Chinese value is not conducive to the identification of non-Chinese users, so the English name is still retained. place=* does need a value upon the neighborhood-quarter-suburb so that the municipal district in China has a suitable tag, but there seems to be no approved proposal. In my opinion, the place sense is subjective, while the administrative division is objective. In many cases, it is not easy to distinguish whether an administrative division has a sense of place. If most of the administrative divisions are tagged as place, it will be confusing for a few not to be mapped because of this. If the administrative division tends to be stable, and it has a jurisdiction area corresponding to the settlement pattern, the place sense may also be generated based on this. On the other hand, without the support of administrative divisions, places may gradually be forgotten, especially in the rapidly expanding Chinese cities, many places will disappear as a result. ——Lepus (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- If the suffix is part of the name, it should be kept - question is where. You could consider several possibilities how to deal with it, e.g. put the long version in official_name=* and the shorter version in name=*, or put the name with the suffix in name=* and the name without the suffix (if it still makes sense and is used like this) in short_name=*. From my understanding, you could also have the suffix both in the name AND in the name:suffix=*, so that apps can decide, in case this makes any sense, to remove the suffix from the name in certain displaying conditions. After all these are just examples how similar situations are dealt with in other places, as a last resort, if established methods are not applicable, a place:CN=* tag could make sense (but then I would expect values in chinese and not in English). Another possibility could be adding more values to place=*, if the existing hierarchy and structure is not sufficient for your case. From what I understood, this is probably more about administrative entities then about settlements in the place sense. --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- name:suffix=* seems to be a supplement to the name without a suffix, and the name already has a suffix in China. Another problem is that the same suffix may correspond to different levels. I have considered canceling the suffix, but there may be townships and towns with the same name in a county, and similar situations exist at the village level. It is not appropriate to cancel the suffix at least below the township level. --Lepus (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- If it is reliably in the name, you might be interested in these tags as well: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/name:suffix and this variant has significant usage: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/name:prefix The place:CN tag also has significant use: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/place:CN but the English values will require a translation table to get to the actual value (in Chinese). —Dieterdreist (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
关于阁下于Multilingual names页面中所进行的编辑之问题
我注意到阁下于10月12日于页面Multilingual names中新增了对上海街道的命名方式（Special:Diff/2207848/2207872），但我恐怕这些内容有严重错误。阁下写“南京东路”的英语名称为“East Nanjing Road”，而此道路于现实中的实际命名为“Nanjing Road (East)”；“中山东一路”的英语名称被阁下写为“East Zhongshan Road Number One”，而此道路的实际命名为“Zhongshan Road (East-1)”。因此可以推断在上海道路的多语言命名中，道路的方位词不应被放在道路名称前，而应放置在最后并由括号包括。提请阁下对相关问题内容进行更改。祝编安。——S-ThndR (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- 根据《上海市道路名称英译导则》，翻译与缩写的规则不同：翻译时，方位词置于整个路名之前、数词置于整个路名之后。书面形式中如需缩写，其缩写形式置于整个路名之后，并用括弧标注。实际路牌为缩写形式。本着不缩写路名的原则，我只提供了非缩写版本。Lepus (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Missing file information
Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.
Sorry for bothering you about this, but it is important to know source of the uploaded files.
Are you the author of image File:Acrylic tennis court surface.jpg ?
Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?
Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ".
In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?
Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?
Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?
If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.
You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.
Feel free to ask for help if you need it - you can do it for example by asking on Talk:Wiki: new topic.
Please ask there if you are not sure what is the proper next step. Especially when you are uploading files that are not your own work or are derivative work (screenshots, composition of images, using aerial imagery etc).
Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified January 2022}} from the file page.
--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Add a section on landcover to a landuse (aquaculture)
Hi,
In November 2021 there appears to be a section on 'landcover' added to landuse=aquaculture. I do not think land use and land cover should be linked in this way. They are different things. The same holds true for other landuse tags such as landuse=basin, landuse=salt_pond etc. Warin61 (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- In my opinion, if a landuse implies a landcover, it would be better to show it on the landcover page, which avoids potential tagging errors.
- landuse=aquaculture doesn't seem to be the case? I'll remove it, but the other two are. ——Lepus (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- What land cover is there for landuse=basin? Concrete? As shown on the wiki page for landuse=basin? Or earth with plants? As I see on every basin=detention that I have mapped locally. I also note that the wiki page for basin=detention shows a sunken sport plying filed covered in grass. I don't think there is a single land cover for this land use. Warin61 (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
landuse=reservoir and landuse=basin are used for the area covered by water in artificial lakes and basins, rather than for the entire land area associated with the reservoir or basin.
不要照搬维基百科内容到中国高速页
中国高速页（即：China/Transport/Expressway）目的是为了提供来自政府公开规划文件或实地确认信息的内容，维基百科大量采纳媒体的不专业表述作为来源，所以才需要另建立一种参考方式。 如果你确实发现高速公路线路信息实际存在且公开政府规划文件未提及，你可以用一个副标题写实际存在的编号。
- 阁下所指何事？——Lepus (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- 我也须提醒您，不要照搬过时的标准文件，安徽省高速公路网规划自您列出的地方标准发布后已多次更改，并非每次都会发布规范性文件，现表中编号可于各地政府发布的规划(图)、招标等文件中验证。——Lepus (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
五、命名与编号
根据《公路路线标识规则和国道编号（GB/T917-2017）》《安徽省级高速公路命名和编号规则（DB34/T849-2019）》，对国家高速公路之外的省级高速公路（含展望线路）的命名与编号进行了调整和完善。
--StarBG (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
如果从维基百科复制内容时，是否可以先调整为简体中文，再将处于简体中文状态的内容搬运
阁下复制的表格内容，有些已经变成繁体字