Hi,
ich bin hier über einen haufen Changesets gestolpert wo jemand alle building=pavillon zu building=pavilion “korrigiert”.
Ich bezweifle das das richtig ist. Das mappersche “pavillon” ist schon was ganz anderes. Gerne Kioske in Parks, oder Gebäude mit Zelt ähnlicher Dachstruktur etc.
building=pavilion sind eher supportgebäude von Sportstätten. Ich denke die vermeindliche typo correction halte ich für falsch:
ff.
Flo
das Problem scheint zu sein, dass building=pavillon nicht dokumentiert ist und
amenity=shelter + shelter_type=picnic_shelter, shelter_type=pavilion oder shelter_type=gazebo
auch nicht wirklich trifft, was gemeint ist.
Hello,
Excuse me for using English, but I assume that you all know quite well how to use the available translator programs in case you can’t follow my English.
I’m the mapper that flohoff mentions in his post about someone who is correcting “pavillon” to “pavilion”.
It’s good to know that worldwide there are 47 instances of building=pavillon compared to 14491 where they use building=pavilion. (We also have one occurence of building=paviljon!).
Based on that information I concluded that the 47 instances are typing errors, and hence I changed a number of them to building=pavilion.
In my German dictionary I can see indeed that “pavillon” in German has a meaning, but that nobody ever took action to make that clear in the wiki page on building=pavilion.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:building%3Dpavilion
The existence of “pavilion” (in the wiki) next to “pavillion” in the German language is a problem.
But OSM has a great basic idea: “any tag you like”", and as such “building=pavillion” should be accepted.
Most people don’t even notice the difference between “pavillon” and “pavilion”, so what use would it be to have that also in the wiki and on osm? Confusion squared. So my advice would be to find a name that doesn’t conflict to that degree with the allready in wide use “building=pavilion”
Marc Zoutendijk.
M.W. bezeichnet der deutsche Begriff “Pavillon” genau dieselbe Art von Bauwerken (die sehr unterschiedlich sein können) wie das englische “pavilion”. Und da wir für die Tags vornehmlich englische Begriffe verwenden, ist building=pavillon m.E. schlicht falsch. Insofern halte ich die Korrektur von pavillon zu pavilion für richtig.
Siehe dazu z.B. den Eintrag im online dictionary
Pavillon - LEO: Übersetzung im Englisch ⇔ Deutsch Wörterbuch
oder auch die Wikipedia-Artikel de:Pavillon und en:pavilion.
Before or after your changes?
Have you checked how many of the >14,000 pavilions correspond to the description in the wiki?
I had a look with overpass-turbo. There are few that really are sport pavilions according to the wiki. I had seen most of them in India and South Africa (but these were only samples).
But in some countries I have seen pacvilion clusters at school buildings, sales stalls and the vast majority in parks, recreation grounds and near lakes.
@Map_HeRo is right, the translation and thus the correction is quite correct and the usage corresponds to different linguistic understandings in many countries. This is not unusual, but the wiki does not reflect this.
While it’s pronounced “-ion” in German it is spelled “Pavillon” not “Pavillion”. As others mentioned, there is no need for a new tag, it suffices to adjust the meaning of “building=pavilion” in Germany. In fact, as one can tell from the Englisch Wikipedia-page, Germans and Americans agree on this topic. Probably - don’t know for sure - the very strict understanding of pavilions in a sports context is limited to UK and its former colonies Australia, South Africa, India…
That was before my changes.
And no, I did not check the 14000 others because they had no typing error in them, which was the task I was performing.
Did you check them?
Do you know how many (of the 26180) building=government are really government buildings?
Please do not confuse correct spelling with correct use!
Marc.
on a random basis: yes
And the majority of those you changed did not have a typo. It usually just had a different meaning than what is documented in the wiki.
I’m used to other users asking the local community before changing such supposed typos. Then it might have been noticed sooner that there is a completely different problem in the data than a supposed typo.
Nobody would ask you to check over 14,000 entries to see if they match the description in the wiki.
But with the still manageable number of entries that you have edited, you should have checked whether they are pavilions on or near sports grounds and therefore correspond to the wiki description. And by then at the latest you would have realised that there is much more inconsistency than just a typo. At the latest then you should have asked the local community.