Talk:Zh-hant:Hong Kong tagging

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
(Redirected from Talk:HK:Hong Kong tagging)
Jump to: navigation, search

These tagging guidelines don't seem to make too much sense for outlying islands. There, we have concrete roads (some broad, some narrow), part of which can be used by motor vehicles (village vehicles, ambulances ...) and part of which cannot (e.g. because they can only be accessed over stairs); and we have unpaved paths. There is no regular car traffic on islands like Lamma or Cheung Chau, so it doesn't make sense to classify paths as roads. All paths are footpaths, but almost all of them can be used by motor vehicles if necessary, so they aren't strictly speaking pedestrian paths either. In the absence of meaningful tagging guidelines for outlying islands, tagging is bound to be subjective and even random.


What about the procedures for mapping paths and cycleways? Jc86035 (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


The names of local geographical features are proper nouns, and as such I do not see any case for entering both name:zh and name:zh-yue as they are 100% identical. Sticking with name:en and name:zh should be sufficient. Hlaw (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Place Names

Edits made by protecthknames

Recently, OSM user protecthknames, who is likely the person behind the facebook page, has

  • added a lot of place=suburb nodes to mark historical district names (e.g. East Point, Tai Ping Shan),
  • moved place nodes to location where the name originates, instead of the centre of the present usage. (e.g. Pokfulam moved to Pokfulam village), and
  • deleted district names in common use which he did not agree (e.g. Admiralty).

If the aim is to preserve the historical names, then the Open Historical Map (OHM) project is the suitable place for map edits.

On the other hand, according to the facebook page (which states 強烈要求統一香港地理分區 - strongly requests a unified geographical district subdivision?) and relevant interviews, the intention seemed to be advocacy for the public to discard some modern district names in common usage, which he claimed was inappropriately affected by the MTR, Government, property developers, etc, and to revert to the "correct" historical names from old maps instead. For example, the facebook page has published a proposed district boundary for the area around Ho Man Tin, and many of these "district names" have been added as place=suburb nodes in the OSM.

OSM should be a present day map for the public, and should reflect place names which are in common use today. Besides displaying appropriate labels in rendered maps, OSM place data are also used in geocoding / reverse-geocoding as well as navigation. It should not be used as a tool to advocate for changes in the common usage of district names (or, in the eye of the advocate, to educate the public on the "correct" usage), nor a channel to protest against changes in district name usage by the public, whatever the causes were behind the drift.

Action taken

The changes made by the user messed up the map as well as services using OSM data, e.g. Nominatim, in these districts, causing confusion to users of OSM based services. To contain the damage, and to preserve the historic information at another place where they belong, I have partially restored the data to the status before, by

  • moving a number of suburb nodes added by the user, which reflected disused historical names, to the OHM and deleting them from the OSM (e.g. East Point).
  • for names which may be used today (but not referring to a district, e.g. names referring to geographical features), downgrading the nodes to place=locality and moved them accordingly to the features (e.g. 採石山 Quarry Hill).
  • undeleting some suburb names removed by the user (e.g. Admiralty), and moving some suburb nodes back to their former positions which mark present day usage (e.g. Pokfulam).

The above are by no means scientific and I am not an expert in the issues of e.g. where a name is being commonly used today. A test that I could think of for the purpose (besides daily experience, and without taking direct reference from other maps) is whether a district name is commonly used today by persons / companies in stating their addresses. (e.g. I haven't seen the usage of addresses like XXX Hennessy Road, East Point, Hong Kong today). The changeset is at [1], which stands to be corrected.

By the way, it seems that the user has already orchestrated changes to insert his advocated district names in Wikipedia and Google Map as seen in this facebook page Facebook post in June 2014 (which mentions "戰場已經由維基百科移師到Google Map Maker,懇請大家有Google account的,可以幫忙為以下地名給正評通過"). So it may not be very useful to check these sources to confirm where a place name is in current usage. (And in fact the district boundaries and geocoding in Google Maps in the affected areas have already been affected for some time).

Headuck (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Take Ho Man Tin as an example. The original place referred is the area around Waterloo Road between Argyle Street and Route 1, but now nearly everyone considers to Ho Man Tin Estate and Oi Man Estate as part of Ho Man Tin. However, the new Ho Man Tin Station at Lo Lung Hang is not commonly accepted as in Ho Man Tin because it is separated by a hill (No. 12 Hill and Quarry Hill). Another example is Causeway Bay. The place where Causeway Bay Station is located was originally called East Point, while the place east of Victoria Park Causeway Bay was the "real" Causeway Bay, however, due to the influence of tram terminus and subsequently MTR Station, now everyone consider Yee Wo Street to be in Causeway Bay. -Miklcct (talk) 06:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)