Forum:Global and regional issues/Reuse and duplication of placenames

From OpenGeofiction
Revision as of 18:26, 27 March 2023 by Alessa (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
ForumsGlobal and regional issues → Global and regional issues/Reuse and duplication of placenames


Hello, everyone.

I want to open the discussion about the reuse of placenames and other toponyms on OGF. Many places in the world that were colonized by European powers often had people that reused the names of cities, rivers, mountains, or other cultural elements in the "new world." For example, London, Ontario is on the Thames River, and there are nearly dozens of places in Missouri that reuse placenames. This is a common feature throughout especially North America but elsewhere, too.

So, what I would like to know is who would be willing to allow placenames and toponyms to be shared to help with the naming of features in the FSA and potentially other places. The proposed guidelines are suggested below to help protect your creative work. Please let me know in the discussion area below what you'd be willing to share with the community. — Alessa (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed guidelines for reusing toponyms

Here are the proposed guidelines for reusing toponyms elsewhere on OGF:

  • Mappers should add name:etymology=* to the node, way, or relation that marks the reused name. In that way, the original creator is credited. Streets and highways would be exempt, but settlements and geographic features would not be. For example, a node in New Carnaby labeled place=town and name=Lynchester would also add name:etymology=Lynchester, Ingerland. By doing this, we could potentially use Overpass to create a running list on the wiki of these placenames.
  • Names from any open purple or blue territory are free to use, as they are community territories. Mappers should still credit the etymology.
  • Unoriginal toponyms that are generic terms (e.g. Springfield or Riverside in English) do not require the etymology, as they are largely generic and easily reusable in a variety of situations.
  • If a territory is abandoned, its contents may be reused as above until a new owner takes over and makes a determination of its status.

Discussion

Please let me know your thoughts and if you'd be willing to let me and others reuse some of the names from your territory! — Alessa (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I like this idea a lot. I would only say that I would be pleased to see this proposed name:etymology tag's use broadened to include linguistic information. I currently have been using my own, self-invented tag "ldata:etymology" quite extensively in my mapping to show the "meanings" of most of the native names I use. I had set up "ldata:" (= "luciano's data") as a kind of parent tag for anything that was non-standard (i.e. not in OSM). So for example, Ohunkagan's relation includes ldata:etymology=Rakhoda "myth or legend"I would happily convert those to something that the community agreed on as standard. I have also made use of "old world" names extensively in Makaska. Just as a single example, here is the village of New Orlent, named after Orlent in Kalm: https://opengeofiction.net/#map=16/-42.9857/145.5836&layers=B. If understand the proposal correctly, I'd want to add a tag name:etymology=Orlent, Kalm.--Luciano (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Just to add to the above. I'd rather not go in the direction of requiring permission from owners to be able to re-use names. Certainly Rome, New York, didn't get Roman permission before naming, and I think the idea of "borrowing" names without concern for origin is both realistic and within the "fair use" principle that I'd hope applies in OGF. Anyway I have used other mappers' names quite extensively in Makaska, without ever concerning myself about permission. Personally, if I see that another mapper has borrowed any of my names, I feel rather flattered than anything else.--Luciano (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
You are correct for New Orlent. I will also note that since name:etymology=* is official OSM syntax, we could just expand it as needed for our own liking with additional sub-subkeys. Example could be something like name:etymology:language=*. This, of course, doesn't preclude your own "ldata" tag that you have been using. The proposal above is an attempt to standardize things for Overpass and wiki integration and to make it easy for people to use.
As for the "asking permission," I personally think it's just a good bit of etiquette and thoroughness to attribute the creation when it came from or was inspired by something someone else did. I'm not trying to suggest outright that it would be required, but it is best practice. Hence, why I've just opened it up and asked if people would be willing to let me use their content in this way. I think if people wanted to grant blanket permission, that'd be welcome. I want to reserve the right, however, for people to say 'no' as a courtesy. I understand what you mean about being honored and flattered, but I also don't want to assume that everyone would think that way. — Alessa (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Also, to clarify @Luciano, I'm not suggesting you've done anything wrong by borrowing names. I just wanted to know where people stood just in case. — Alessa (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Permission granted

Sign your name here (with the four tildes) if you're willing to let other users name places after things in your mapping. If there are to be any restrictions, please note them. Thank you!