On the name of Persian Gulf

General talk
21

Side steps but doesn’t quite solve. Vector maps allow users to chose a language for their labels.

If I chose my language as Persian (Farsi), then the label would show up as خلیج فارس (which I believe translates into English as Persian Gulf) because name:fa=خلیج فارس. Problem solved! Except…

…let’s say I chose English, there would then still be a debate about whether it should show as Persian Gulf or Arabian Gulf. Both terms are in English and both are still valid.

(As it happens, it would currently shown Persian Gulf as name:en=Persian Gulf and alt_name:en=Arabian Gulf)

22

This may work, but I am quite certain that there would then be complaints that “that name” is listed first, when “this name” should be! :roll_eyes:

2 Likes
23

Pri enhavo de la etikedo «name» de plurlandaj objektoj oni jam skribis ĉe la vikio (angle).

Oficiala lingvo de Sauda Arabujo, barejno, Kataro, Kuvajto, Irako, Omano, UAE estas araba, oficiala lingvo de Irano: persa, do la nomo estu en tiuj du lingvoj.

24

The translation tools seem not to understand Esperanto, so for the benefit of everyone else, Google suggests what you wrote translates as:

"Content of the “name” tag of multi-country objects has already been written on the wiki (in English).

Official language of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Oman, UAE is Arabic, official language of Iran: Persian, so the name should be in those two languages."

25

Mr. SimonPoole
The border of the countries is not a joke, and so is the water and soil of each country.
Every place has its own name. If someone tells you today to change the name of your house, tomorrow they will also say: This house is not yours and get out of it.
The fact that you say that the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Gulf should be written together, the Arabian Gulf is the old name of the Red Sea, and using the Arabian Gulf here is wrong. This is the Persian Gulf and it should be called the same in all languages.

مرز کشورها شوخی نیست و همین طور آب و خاک هر کشور.
هر جایی نام خاص خود را دارد. اگر امروز کسی به شما بگوید اسم خانه خودتان را عوض کنید، فردا هم خواهد گفت: این خانه مال تو نیست و از آن برو بیرون
این که عنوان میکنید خلیج فارسی و خلیج عربی باهم نوشته شود، اصلا خلیج عربی نام قدیم دریای سرخ است و استفاده از خلیج عربی برای اینجا اشتباه است. اینجا خلیج فارس است و در تمام زبان ها به همین نام باید باشد.

1 Like
26

EO

  1. Sur OSM ni mapigas aktualajn objektojn, do nomo kiu estis uzata antaŭ kelkaj jarcentoj tute ne gravas.
  2. Ĉiu lingvo havas siajn regulojn pri nomi geografiajn objektojn. Do ekzemple en la pola lingvo Relation: ‪Калининградская область‬ (‪103906‬) | OpenStreetMap nomiĝas «Obwód królewiecki» ne «Obwód kaliningradzki» kaj https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9326283 estas «Zatoka Perska» ne «Zatoka Arabska» kaj vi ne rajtas ŝanĝi ilin.

EN

  1. On OSM we are mapping present-day features. so the name which were being used centuries ago is not important.
  2. Each language has its own rules about naming geographic objects. For example in polish Relation: ‪Калининградская область‬ (‪103906‬) | OpenStreetMap is «Obwód królewiecki» not «Obwód kaliningradzki» and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9326283 is «Zatoka Perska» not «Zatoka Arabska», you are not allowed to change them.
27

It’s not like it was just centuries ago and changed later. Rather, it has been in the same form since centuries ago until now.
In the second case: in other languages, we must have a meaning of the reference label (ie, the name label). In the case of the Persian Gulf, the meaning changes with the change you say. And later, for this reason, its ownership may also change.

این طور نبوده که فقط قرن ها پیش بوده و بعدا عوض شده باشد. بلکه از قرن ها پیش تا به حال به یک شکل بوده است.
در مورد دوم هم: در سایر زبان ها هم باید یک معنی از برچسب مرجع (یعنی برچسب name) داشته باشیم. در مورد خلیج فارس نیز با تغییری که شما میگویید معنی عوض میشود. و بعدا به همین علت ممکن است مالکیت آن هم تغییر کند.

28

For the most part, nobody “owns” it. It’s international waters.

1 Like
29

I’d refer people to Soyuz-Apollo program (Apollo–Soyuz - Wikipedia) history to get some ideas how this might be handled. It didn’t provoke WW3 back then, so it must had some merit, eh?

Does this work @ChehrehBargi? Open OpenStreetMap Americana - (disregard the name of the map for the moment), but when you click on Change button on lower-right and type your language, does it display correct name (i.e. the name that your specific country claims is correct)?

If so, then I see solution like that the future for OSM (and default vector map on osm.org autoselecting the language from the user browser settings). That way, everybody would see what they want to see, and there would be no need for all the disagreements and insisting “that other people use names that you prefer”.

Such insistence would be denying other people their free will! They might decide to use the names you prefer when speaking to you, but that is out of politeness, and not out of obligation.

For example, my own country is properly called Hrvatska, and yet most of the world call it some variant of Croatia, except few neighboring countries (some of which we were relatively recently was at war with, BTW – which just goes to prove that using this name or that is not necessarily a sign of (dis-)respect, really).
It is just that different people have different names for things and places. One should really learn to live with that.

4 Likes
30

About 25% of these waters belong to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain. 25% belongs to Iran. 50% of these waters are also international waters.

31

Dear Matija_Nalis
I read your content. But one problem remains…
If you want to speak impartially, why does the main tag (name tag) remain in Arabic? In fact, the main problem is the same tag. If other languages want to see their desired phrase, then at least the main tag should be according to international documents. All international documents say that this is the Persian Gulf. But we see that injustice has happened here and they have easily discarded all the documents

Matija_Nalis عزیز
من مطالب شما را خواندم. اما یک مسئله باقی میماند…
اگر بی طرفانه بخواهید صحبت کنید پس چرا تگ اصلی (تگ نام) به زبان عربی باقی میماند. در واقع مشکل اصلی هم همین تگ است. اگر سایر زبان ها مایل اند عبارت دلخواه خود را ببینند پس حداقل تگ اصلی باید مطابق مدارک بین المللی باشد. تمام مدارک بین المللی میگویند که اینجا خلیج فارس است. اما میبینیم که در اینجا بی عدالتی رخ داده است و به راحتی تمام مدارک را کنار گذاشته اند

32

So 25% are Arabic (language), 25% are Persian & 50% are English (as the international maritime language).

33

Make no mistake, 25% belongs to 7 countries and 25% of these waters belong to Iran. The problem is in the main tag. We have to proceed based on the documents. Even if we assume that this sea is international waters, then it should be called according to its international name. The international documents mentioned above.

اشتباه نکنید، 25 % برای 7 کشور و 25 % از این آبها هم متعلق به ایران است. مشکل هم در تگ اصلی است. ما باید بر اساس اسناد پیش برویم . حتی اگر فرض کنیم این دریا آبهای بین المللی باشد پس باید بر اساس نام بین المللی آن نامیده شود. که در بالا به آن مدارک بین المللی اشاره شده.

1 Like
34

This is the problem that vector tiles won’t solve. The gulf has multiple names with valid English translations (Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf), so which should be displayed if the user selects English as their language?

Wikipedia suggests we have it the wrong way round in OSM. With the primary English name being Persian Gulf and an alternative (newer) name being Arabian Gulf.

It’s clearly a politically contentious issue. A useful read which suggests just using “The Gulf” (but I doubt that’ll please anybody!).

1 Like
35

Given that the international language of the sea is English, perhaps you’d prefer that in the “name” tag, leaving all the language names as well? Or perhaps “English / Arabic / Persian” in odd years and “English / Persian / Arabic” in even ones**? :slight_smile:

** “at the right” being “first” in an RTL language.

36

But don’t you see - if all the visible solutions (like the one mentioned above) implement that the names are always displayed in user-preferred language, then the issue goes away, as name does not get used.
In fact, one might then suggest that name tag gets completely removed on all disputed areas as to not show preference for anything, and thus avoid all the political bickering and waste of time (which could be better spent doing actual mapping). That would be ideal, don’t you think?

It could potentially also avoid other problematic issues (like disputed territories, warzones etc) in the future.

In fact, the main problem is the same tag. If other languages want to see their desired phrase, then at least the main tag should be according to international documents. All international documents say that this is the Persian Gulf. But we see that injustice has happened here and they have easily discarded all the documents

I’m not sure who are “they”, and I have no idea about political situation, or international treaties there, etc. sorry. :man_shrugging:

For me (who can read neither Persian nor Arabic), the displayed name is even worse – no matter the issue of political preferences, I cannot read either AT ALL (nor more than half of the labels on the planet on default osm.org rendering, for that matter). Surely we can agree that having unreadable name is even worse than having one which is less popular/preferred/politically correct/whatever?

So, yes, I agree that current solution on map displayed on osm.org by default is obviously not a good solution, yet it is what we have at the moment at osm.org until vector tiles get implemented there, which give the possibility of better solution. Which is why I’m quite keen on seeing it.

But I looks like it is not international waters, but exclusive economic zone? I have no idea how are those governed in this specific case.

name:en ? It is not about translation of words of string one by one into some other language; it is about how it is actually called in English. E.g. if you are British citizen, how do you (/your country) officially calls it (for British English in this example).

There is int_name too, so some users might want to choose that instead.

1 Like
37

See the source I linked to. Both are used. That’s why it’s not just about translations and vector tiles. It’s the old disputed/multiple names issue again.

38

So? I don’t think such problem is solvable globally at all (or else we would not have wars, for example). So, I set lower standards that are actually achievable - I just want to solve/avoid the problem for OSM.

E.g. in the case of language uses of USA officials mentioned in the Guardian (if you are referring to that?).
Or, you may prefer to call it shifting the problem from OSM to USA/whatever government what they want to call official in which year, sure. But that too solves the issue in OSM (Governments at least have more resources to waste at the problem and that is what they do, and OSM can simply copy whatever powers-that-be decide with no wasted time/resources instead concentrating on what it does best).

It’s the old disputed/multiple names issue again.

Yes, those are solved with such solution too. If I choose in for example OsmAnd that I want labels in Croatian, I’ll get name:hr (when that’s available). If a Serbian visiting Croatia chooses to see labels in Serbian, they’ll get name:sr. If an Italian tourist chooses to see labels in Italian, they’ll see name:it. Quite good.

Is it perfect? Well, no, but nothing is ever perfect.

Better question is “would it be an improvement over current rendering on osm.org”? And the answer is resounding “Absolutely, vast improvement” IMHO. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and all that, eh?

2 Likes
39

Yes, this would be a vast improvement. Naïve data consumers that only consider the name tag would show nothing, which would be an improvement over the current situation where the same impasses are brought up for the debate. It would also encourage the use of name:xx and xxx_name tags for data consumers that want a more complete display.

The same situation exists for features that have no obvious primary language such as Atlantic Ocean as noted above, and there too, the obvious solution is no name tag.

The fact that we’ve not come to this very obvious conclusion is a testament to the fact that (a) people care very much that a label is rendered on osm-carto for for features they expect to see and (b) we lack a fundamental ability to or interest in making that decision as a project. OSMF’s decision about where to put the RU/UA boundaries with respect to Crimea was far more controversial than would be a decision to omit the name as a general policy for disputed features that are at an unresolvable impasse.

1 Like
40

I think you conflated two completely different subjects. Was that a intentional (unmarked) sarcasm for humorous effect, or something else? I can’t tell with all the :popcorn:.

So, to take it at face value, if you did not intend sarcasm:

The “Naïve data consumers that only consider the name tag would show nothing” of your reply seems to be about this quote above instead, and actively disregards the (inseparable, obviously!) “if” part of the quote – which seems somewhat disingenuous.

“if all the visible solutions” (my quote) implemented that, that would by definition preclude existence of “Naïve data consumers” (your quote) that didn’t implement that. Yes, it is in the possible farther future, and not tomorrow by noon (and I did not claim any deadlines!)

Yet the message of mine that talks about “vast improvement” - it talks about one single data consumer only – osm.org default map. If that one supported languages better (as explained), than it would have made vast improvement, i.e.:

That issue is completely orthogonal to potential (eventual) removal of name tag on disputed territories in the farther future (which would obviously only happen after at least major data consumers support that. Which would take some time, I’m sure – but also we can see that instilled sense of urgency e.g. OAuth1 deprecation can make data consumers move at faster pace :open_mouth: ).
Only connection between those two ideas (from two separate posts) is that osm.org map improvement implementing better name handling is one of the essential prerequisites to even consider descending going down “removing name on disputed territories” route.

It would also encourage the use of name:xx and xxx_name tags for data consumers that want a more complete display.

Yes it would, to everyone’s benefit. When they see what what osm.org does, they might decide to follow suite. Thus I propose that change as a first step. Other steps might (or might) follow later, depending on how that one goes.

Were I not completely given up on suggesting improvements on Carto default map style, I’d suggest that on low zoom levels it renders int_name as priority to name (which could be done today)…