piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Verdy_p (2018-03-15 17:57:28+00:00): This method of naming differently has been used everywhere else since the beginning, because there were confusions betwee ndistinct objects (and Nominatim was also confused and did not allow making the distinction between landmasses and admin boundaries, but also because various contributors changed landmasses into admin boundaries, creating duplicate)
This is NOT specific to Jersey, it has been used since long in Germany (the first to use it), and it was not by me but was decided because of these confusion problems between distinct objects.
Verdy_p (2018-03-15 18:01:20+00:00): Note: the OSM website (here). Does not allow seeing distinctions easily (the types of objects are NOT specified at all in list of members or list of parent relations).
So confusion is extremely frequent when this OSM site does not make any difference, but just displays the "name" tag, the object "id", and the object version.
When people see that, they want to remove what they think are duplicates, or select the wrong objects as references.
iD also does not offer any easy distinction.
Verdy_p (2018-03-15 18:03:58+00:00): Remember that these "names" found landmasses are never rendered at all with labels on maps because they are NOT boundaries. They are just used by reference from other objects or selected and found by specific tags.
May be iD and this site should display at least the "note" tag, or the "type" tag of relations.
SomeoneElse (2018-03-15 18:17:31+00:00): Another well-established principle is that we do not tag for the renderer, or how it appears in a search engine such as nominatim, or how it appears in an editor such as iD, or on this website.  
"Jersey (land mass)" is not a name, and shouldn't be assigned the name tag.
Also, yes, I am just using Jersey as an example here.
Either you can go through these changesets and remove the "not actually names" that you added, or I can with a Data Working Group hat on.  Obviously it would be a lot easier for all concerned if you did it.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, (reluctantly) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group
Verdy_p (2018-03-15 18:25:36+00:00): So you want to reverse a decision that was taken long time ago by other people (not me) to use distinctive name without even asking them why they chose that convention? And you don't care at all about the confusions that were made (which was why I made this changeset to solve duplicates or incorrect tagging for landmasses which were confused with boundaries !)
SomeoneElse (2018-03-15 19:43:29+00:00): > So you want to reverse a decision that was taken long time ago by other people (not me) to use distinctive name without even asking them why they chose that convention?
Can you please point to such a "decision"?  The best description of how we map names in OSM includes https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only .  That text was I believe written by Harry Wood 3 or 4 years ago, and has stood the test of time.
>  And you don't care at all about the confusions that were made
Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying there (maybe write it in French if that's clearer)?
May I respectfully suggest that you take a step back and ask why it's always _you_ that seems to be having these discussions?  Also, why is it that your wiki user talk page includes comments from extremely mild-mannered and tolerant mappers such as this: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Verdy_p#MapLesotho_Pages ?  The common factor is that your behaviour is different.  When there's a difference of opinion in OSM, what normally happens is that people put their point of view forward and then try and find some kind of compromise.  You aren't doing this (here or elsewhere).  What you have said instead is:
o Explained what RawEdit does (I didn't ask, and already knew).
o Said that it was OK to use made-up names because "The names for landmasses are not rendered on map".
o Said "Nominatim does not even help to disambiguate the two" (I suspect that this means that you think that Nominatim can't distiguish between one of your landmass relations and an admin boundary - which I find difficult to believe).
o Said "The name is already fully descriptive of the intended use. " - which is fine, but if that value is not a name but a description then you should be adding it to a description tag not a name tag.
o Said "This method of naming differently has been used everywhere else since the beginning" but provided no evidence of that.
o Said "the OSM website (here). Does not allow seeing distinctions easily (the types of objects are NOT specified at all in list of members or list of parent relations). ".  This is true to some extent (because it does not recognise what these relations represent), but irrelevant.  We don't tag things in a certain way just so they appear in a certain way in a certain renderer (of which this website is one).
o Said "iD also does not offer any easy distinction.".  This is untrue.  It's very easy in iD to view tags and relation memberships.
In other words, the only reason that you're using these made-up names is because you're tagging for the renderer (in this case this website).  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer makes it clear - "avoid using incorrect tags".
Verdy_p (2018-03-15 21:08:21+00:00): I've not tagged for the renderer. FULL STOP. I have used existing conventions (sused since long). FULL STOP. I have solved incorrect tagging caused by confusion. Names are accessory but still essential for editors. the iD  editor still does not make any distrinction when selecting relations, you have to visit each one after selecting to know if this is the correct one by looking at the list of tags.
Many people are confused. And as long as this does not cause any rendering problem for any one there's no reason to change something that was in place since the begining: "Jersey (landmasses)" is NOT "Jersey", only a part of it and this makes sense to have this precision, just like we add disambiguation prefixes in wikis that need unique names for linking and especially because this also causes confusion (OSM still has no mechanism to signal ambiguities and help resolve them to perform the correct selection; yes we have tags, but unfortunately they are ignored by the tools, as well as by people that don't check them at all or have no idea about how to choose correctly).

I repeat it becauser you don't want to read: I have used those names to help fixing incorrect tags (not names, they don't matter here, but tagging distinct landmasses as if they were boundaries, and they are not !)
The augmented names are not descriptive they are accurate because these landmasses are NOT the same as the place from which they borrow a part of their name and only a part of their semantic meaning.
Verdy_p (2018-03-15 21:09:06+00:00): In summary: I did not use any incorrect tags, I fixed them to remove duplicates or incorrect references between unrelated areas.
SomeoneElse (2018-03-15 21:18:07+00:00): > In summary: I did not use any incorrect tags
So where (in Jersey or elsewhere) can I go to find the name "Jersey (land mass)" then?  Or is it just a "name" that you made up?
SomeoneElse (2018-03-15 21:19:29+00:00): But the more serious question is: why it's always _you_ that seems to be having these discussions? 
What is your theory as to why this happens?
Verdy_p (2018-03-15 21:21:13+00:00): The incorrect tags (notably using type=boundary and boundary=administrative) or references caused also severe rendering problems for the international borders or some regional borders: they were discontinuous because queries for borders retrieved two unrelated relations, and renderers tend to eliminate ways that are selected twice: these borders were NOT rendered at all.
This caused also severe problem in Nominatim while it tried to locate a place in relevant superboundaries: superboundaries where eliminated. It caused severe problems for geocoding places (finding places by name or address and retrieving coordinates: places were not found).

These bugs were NOT caused by names of landmasses but the fact that landmasses were incorrectly tagged as boundaries.

Confusion between relations will continue to happen again as long as editors are not changed to display relation types (at least): landmasses are NOT tagged with boundary=administrative, or type=boundary. It is what I fixed, individually, area by area.

And this was absolutely NOT an automated edit but individual fixes to solve existing problems that would have not exited at all if names were more accurate and not so confusing.

I repeat: "Jersey (land mass)" is NOT "Jersey". (I can say it for other cases, this is of course an example, I did not invent it, this naming scheme was used since long and not invented by me, I have respected the existing conventions that worked everywhere else and did not cause any problem except for you).
SomeoneElse (2018-03-16 13:05:19+00:00): It's happening again (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Verdy_p#Route_relation:_Roles_forward:stop:.3Cnumber.3E_etc._on_page_Relation:route ) so I'll ask the question again:

Why it's always _you_ that seems to be having these discussions?
What is your theory as to why this happens?
Verdy_p (2018-03-16 14:09:56+00:00): Why is it only you that inists on what is not an issue at all ? Stop this harassment.
SomeoneElse (2018-03-16 14:20:28+00:00): It's a genuine question, honestly - most people don't have lots of people complaining on their wiki talk pages.
Why do you think it happens to you?
Verdy_p (2018-03-16 15:30:20+00:00): "lot of people is your interpretation" actually this is very small to the number of thank you I receive directly.
You are just harassing me for sometinh which is absolutely not an issue anywhere and don't want to recognize that I solved really incorrect tagging that caused real problems.
You are doing transforming this into a agressive personal war for no valid reason at all, based only on your own theoretical assumption which here is also false. No I did not tag anything for rendering, and yes the names are accurate, and the convention used does not come from me, it has been used since long without any problem to avoid similar issues, and it will remain as long as editor tools (or navigation tools) to not disambiguate things correctly. There's much more benefit in disambiguating this explicitly, and espacially there when the designated objects are clearly different.
SomeoneElse (2018-03-16 15:38:04+00:00): > "lot of people is your interpretation" actually this is very small

No - most people don't have multiple archives of complaints on their wiki talk page.  I'm trying to understand why this is happening to you and if there's anything that can be changed that would avoid it.

> You are doing transforming this into a agressive personal war

Again no - quite the opposite, actually.  I'm trying to understand (and to help you understand) the causes for the conflicts that you have with other OSM contributors that other people, by and large, don't have.
Why do you think it happens to you?
Verdy_p (2018-03-16 17:30:40+00:00): Only because I'm above average users, just means there is a higher chance of friction occuring with just a few (like you do) for things that are in fact not even a problem or just because of personal opinions. Landmasses could even have no name it all (they are never needed for rendering), but since they were used to disabmiguate things more easily only in editors and tools, a choice was made by others (since long) to use this disambiguation is a way that is immediately usable in editors and QA tools. These names don"t even need to be translated, they or only there as helpers for contributors editing the map and that's fine.
Verdy_p (2018-03-16 17:41:58+00:00): This was documented since long first in Germany https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Relation:land_area
A name attribute is allowed, but the doc never says it is mandatory, its value is completely unspecified and it can be omitted completely. If it is there it is just a helper for contributors but it has no use at all in rendering or when searching data for these relations (which are also not necessarily "administrative" in the way each country define rules for their coastal area, given that legally they should be defined on the baseline and not the highwater level of OSM "coastlines". OSM still has almost nowhere data about baselines and OSM coastlines are approximations.
So take it seriously, these relations are not legal boundaries, they do not represent the administrative unit you want to reuse to abbreviate them, they are only the emerged part of these units. So qualifid names are complelely fine and less misleasing.

All this changeset was not about changing these names but disambiguate and fix other tags and relation members, because they were confused and this caused severe rendering and usage problems on conflicting boundary relations with the same attributes where the attroibutes should have been clearly different. After I made it, the map here looks finally OK and shows all admin borders (before there were "holes" everywhere caused by conflicts between confused relations. That job is done, all fixes are now OK, geocoding now works properly. And I don't understand why you criticize that only on a minor detail (non mandatory names for these relations, just used as very useful hints for contributors to avoid they make new confusion later or break existing relations)
SomeoneElse (2018-03-16 18:03:58+00:00): On the issue of "land area relations" (the original issue here, but less important than the way that we work together as mappers) the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Relation:land_area page just says "name" - i.e. "add the name of the thing".  It does _not_ say "make up a name to make it appear special on the OSM website", which is what you are doing here.  There appears to be no documentation that backs up your approach here.
SomeoneElse (2018-03-16 18:09:30+00:00): ... and on the more important issue:

> Only because I'm above average users

By _quantity_ of _wiki_ edits, certainly.
However, looking at your wiki talk page and at http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=90780 there does seem to be a consistent problem.  Have you ever replied to a question in a way that is non-argumentative?  Have you ever said to anyone "actually, you're correct".  This is something that most OSM mappers (and most people in the wider world) do all the time, yet it's something that you do not seem to do at all. Do you genuinely believe that you are always correct and everyone else is always wrong?  Wouldn't it be statistically be very unlikely for that to be the case?
OSM is a colloborative project; we need to work together to create the best map.  We simply can't do that if everyone were to take the attitude that "I am right, everyone else is wrong".
Again - to reiterate - I'm trying to help here.  We can achieve so much more as mappers if we work together, and not spend time arguing with each other.
Best Regards,
Andy
Verdy_p (2018-03-16 18:11:07+00:00): You're inventing interpretations.
Since the begining it has always included accurate disambiguation. These landmasses are ***not*** the countries/regions, it has alwyas been a ***part*** of them.
You're just continuing to fight against what is actually not a problem at all anywhere.
The diusambiguation could as well be "Archipelago", or other similar terms. Many of these landmasses have their own defined geographical name distinct from the admin boundary (this is just to demonstrate that they actualyl don't even have to match the name of the admin boundary in which they are located). And as these names are optional, they are actually not used except by contributors trying to edit them or reference them.
Verdy_p (2018-03-16 18:17:21+00:00): for your most recent reply: you continue making personal attacks. and asserting false things about what I do or think.
I replied, you refused and argumented, and you don't want me to argument ? Sorry but you are not trying to find any solution, your going to nowhere.
You retierate your arguments, I reitarate mines which are justified (your arguments are found nowhere in any discussion or decision, and you actually want to reduce the help we want to give to users).
Stop this fight: ask to developers of editors and tools to add the missing disambiguation. I won't help much for that, as I do not develop these tools.
Only JOSM offers a disambiguation but JOSM is used by a minority of users. Instead, please post a RFE to iD bug tracker and support if you want this to change... You're speaking to the wrong person as I cannot decide their priorities.
SomeoneElse (2018-03-16 18:33:33+00:00): > Many of these landmasses have their own defined geographical name distinct from the admin boundary
There are examples of this - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/375761 is genuinely named "Mainland" and is part of the Orkney Islands.  However the "landmass" names are simply invented by you; they do not exist as names anywhere in the real world.  Some may be valid _descriptions_ of what they represent but they are not _names_.  Remember - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only .
> Stop this fight:
Repeating myself, but I am not trying to pick a fight here - I am trying to help you.  OSM progresses in accordance with a number of key princples, including "map what is on the ground", "don't tag for the renderer" and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability .  If you think that there's a problem with a tool used within OSM then you entirely at liberty to suggest an improvement, or (even better) to code that suggested improvement yourself.  Personally I don't see that there is a problem to be "fixed", but you clearly do.
SomeoneElse (2018-03-16 18:38:56+00:00): > you continue making personal attacks
What in my comments above constitutes a "personal attack"?  The fact that I've linked to your wiki talk page?  Throughout I've tried to be positive (e.g. "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only is how OSM handles names") and tried to ask questions about the reasoning behind your changes here and elsewhere (and comments here and elsewhere).  Does that constitute a "personal attack"?
If we're to work together then the only way to do that is to try and understand each others' views, and the only way to find those out is to ask.
Please do provide more detail about what you think the problem is - I'm genuinely trying to find out.
Verdy_p (2018-03-16 18:52:34+00:00): "Map what is on the ground" is not applicable. There's no such tyhing on the ground. So these names can ONLY be descriptive and should be made accurately so that it it is still distinct from what would be really on the ground...
This is a case where any choice (with or without the disambiguation) here is equally arbitrary, but then disambiguation is enough to take the priority to all other considerations.

You're continuing to repeat yourself, you are truing to force to accept an argument that you have NEVER justified validly. I gave my reasons and they are valid and this does not contradict any past decision or common practices.

You just fight for a principle that I respect, but that is not even applicable here. And systematic principles in mapping are always wrong ! Maps are full of exceptions everywhere, you should know that, otherwise you should not use OSM at all!
SomeoneElse (2018-03-16 20:03:59+00:00): I don't understand most of what you're trying to say here, but to be clear, I am simply trying to explain some of the key principles of OSM (in each case linking back to what documentation we have), and am asking questions about why you find yourself in conflict with so many people in OSM so much of the time.  I'm trying to find the reasoning behind the conflict that occurs (here, and elsewhere - in fact everywhere you come into contact with other mappers).  This is consistent with almost every reaction of yours on http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=90780 and on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Verdy_p .  To be clear - most people in OSM manage to go through life in OSM without this level of conflict, yet it happens to you all the time.  Could it be that you are reacting in a different way to comments than other people do?
OSM values the integrity of the mapping community above almost anything else, and anything that damaged that community can be dealt with harshly.  As an example of that, see https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2014-07-10_Special_Romania (one of the very few long-term bans that have been placed on users in OSM).
Please think carefully about every response you make to other mappers in OSM.  Every time you reply to someone you do not need to "argue" or "fight" with them - it is perfectly possible to state your case and listen to someone else's argument.  Sometimes they'll accept what you are saying in its entirety; sometimes you'll accept that you got it wrong and most often a compromise will be reached whereby you both respect each other's point of view and ensure that both of your goals can be met.  I can understand that for various reasons this level of understanding of another person's point of view can be difficult, and it sometimes requires a special effort, but it is really important so that we can all work together in OSM.
Verdy_p (2018-03-16 20:32:32+00:00): When I do make errors, I recognize them immediately, and correct fast. But you've not conveinced me that there was an error, so it is an unfruitful discussion. Nothing wxas decided, but you want absolutely from me that I reply to you that I was worng or made an "error" or that I'm "wrong"'. This is going nowhere ! You have an opinion, I have mine, you have absolutely NO right to force me to accept yours. We exposed our arguments , we just disagree, that's all.
But nothing at all was broken in the data, and that's you absoltuely don't want to recoignize it, and it is really an agressive attitude you have adopted.
We can perfectly have opposite opinions without having to force the others to accept one view.
And here I am strongly convinced that none of your arguments apply. You are seeing importance on things that in fact have no importance. you've not demonstrated any break in the logic or any problems this has caused.
Youy are still convinced that I took my own decision, but I only followed the existing practices adopted since many years and that you just want to change ALONE.
Sorry? I will no longer reply you because of your oppressive attitude, which is all but communatary if you still think that there must be ONLY ONE solution and when you still pretned that I really made a real error that you've never demonstrated anywhere.
SomeoneElse (2018-03-16 21:22:57+00:00): > But you've not conveinced me that there was an error, so it is an unfruitful discussion.
Unfortunately, that's not how "compromise" works.
Also to be clear it's not just "my opinion against yours" - I've quoted accepted OSM best practice (and linked to the relevant articles all the way through this process).  Simply saying "you are wrong" will not convince people - two other things need to happen.  One is that supporting evidence needs to be presented, and the other is that the other person in the discussion has to be willing to consider that evidence.  The only evidence that you have presented is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Relation:land_area , and that doesn't say anything about making up names to disambiguate them from any other relations.  With regard to the second point you don't appear to have considered the links that I've used here at all (i.e. you haven't said "that's wrong, because..." or "that doesn't apply here, because...").  You've simply said "you're wrong".  If we all behaved like that there would be no OSM "community" - there'd just be a bunch of people carrying out edit wars against each other in OSM itself, in the wiki, and on the help site.
If you take away one thing from this discussion please let it be this:
"OSM is a community project and we need to work together to create the best map.  This means talking to people, and actually listening to them as well".