dani517
 Joined: 18/06/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0   |
| Explaining the determination of the category «railway terminal», we completely forgot, that the main function of terminal - transfer unit between different forms of transport. Based on this it can be not a station at the end of a railway line. As the minimum, intersection with the subway line with the entrance into the metro from the building of railway terminal, or the presence of auto depot in the general complex. Must be added in the description of the category «railway terminal» transfer unit between different forms of transport. |
|
|
|
seafordian
 Joined: 24/07/07
Places: 6146
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="Teresa":vq2k644t][u:vq2k644t]Off Topic[/u:vq2k644t]
[quote="RK77":vq2k644t]I agree, some countries may not have facilities under one roof. I visited a train station in India whose ticket office was a small building on a platform.[/quote:vq2k644t]
In my town, we only have one platform and no ticket office at all, nor is there a ticket machine. Many a times I had to get off the train and got so worry because the staff had not came round with his portable ticket machine as I do not want to be persecuted for dodging the fare. Thank goodness often it was in the nick of time I got the ticket from the staff before I got off the train![/quote:vq2k644t]
Huh, my post got deleted as "off topic" when I was already replying to 2 "off topic" posts as is...........................funny.................
Anyway, Teresa, you shouldn't have worried. If you got off the train, they wouldn't have hunted you down, that would be their fault for not having proper ticket selling equipment available. Free ride!
We had several small Amtrak stations like that here in the US with the same problem, people could hop the train at one small station and jump off at the next before the agent came thru, but now they all have automated ticket printed machines at all of the stations under a kiosk or shelter! In fact, they are big enough to tag on some platforms...
do we have a category for "train ticket machine"? <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) --> |
|
|
|
RK77
 Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="seafordian":dmcme02i]do we have a category for "train ticket machine"? <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) -->[/quote:dmcme02i]
We have [atm / cash machine], so "train ticket machine" could be introduced if there is a [u:dmcme02i]need[/u:dmcme02i] for it. It would need to be nested under [railway] and optionally under [train station]. |
|
|
|
cityrat
 Joined: 17/09/08
Places: 47
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="RK77":1rcqrl44]This is the current nesting:
[code:1rcqrl44] ┌────────── [railway]
│ └─────────────────┐
│ [train station]
│ │
└───────────────── [station building (railway)][/code:1rcqrl44][/quote:1rcqrl44]
IMHO [railway] - [station building (railway)] link is excessive. |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
| I agree it is excessive because there is a double link back to [railway], but our friend jatayu insists a [station building] is only suited as a child of [railway] than [train station]. His argument is objects like station buildings are better off being returned in [railway] searches and while I agree with him in this regard, I think a station building would be a welcome result for somebody searching for train stations in general. |
|
|
|
cityrat
Joined: 17/09/08
Places: 47
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="RK77":21siqusu]His argument is objects like station buildings are better off being returned in [railway] searches[/quote:21siqusu]
Does category search return only first level children? 8-0 |
|
|
|
bio2935c
 Joined: 15/12/06
Places: 1426
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="cityrat":2nac7eve]Does category search return only first level children? 8-0[/quote:2nac7eve]My understanding is that is [u:2nac7eve]should[/u:2nac7eve] return all levels, not just the first level. However, you can find out for yourself whether it works this way or not. Then come back here and tell us what you discovered.
As for the hierarchy ...
I have no problem with [railway] being at the top of a great many 'sub'-categories that are railway related. The term "railway" (as a non-linear object) is pretty imprecise, so if it returns a number of vaguely 'related' objects, then that's fine.
When I filter for [railway station], however, I want to find only stations. I definitely do [u:2nac7eve]not[/u:2nac7eve] want to find a long list of objects that are merely "[u:2nac7eve]in[/u:2nac7eve]" a station, although I'm willing to accept a (in most cases) single extra red dot for the station building. In many cases, this is what has already been tagged as the station anyway, so ... ok by me.
[station building] linking back to [railway]? As I said above, this should be redundant. Hopefully cityrat will confirm this. |
|
|
|
Harooni
Joined: 19/04/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
I said to remove the parent [train station] for [station building] and make only one Parent, i.e to [railway-do not use].
It is not proper to designate every category which falls 'in the train station' to parent [train station].
Presently, the popular category train station returns only train stations and this is what the category is meant for. If you look at a particular station at some level zoom out, you will also be able to see the train routes with the help of red dots.
However, this will not be possible when nesting is undertaken to [train station]. It will make filtering of both the categories worthless and would defeat the purpose of category system. So, its a bit of common sense, allow categories to show objects for which they are meant keeping in mind the current category infrastructure of WM.
Nesting [station building (railway] with [railway - do not use] and not with [train station], will fulfill the object of showing a part of railway infrastructure and running a query for [train station] would only show train stations only. |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
| Agree with bio's opinion. It is right that we should keep searches restricted to the purpose of the search, so a search for [train station] which is merely a branch in the large tree that is [railway] should only return train stations. However, the inclusion of station building as a child will not be intrusive since many train stations only have one of them. [station building] should be removed from [railway] as it is already linked through [train station]. |
|
|
|
Harooni
Joined: 19/04/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="RK77":28n4vbhu] It is right that we should keep searches restricted to the purpose of the search, so a search for [train station] which is merely a branch in the large tree that is [railway] should only return train stations.[/quote:28n4vbhu]
This is a contradictory statement. On the other hand if you then search for [train station] you will end getting many red dots but will hardly find the train station. Just imagine the situation.
Again, I add nesting station building to [train station] only for the reason that it exists in the station is against the objective for which [train station] exist. You CANNOT add a child merely because it exist in a station. By doing this you cannot stop actions of adding other such categories which exist 'in' a station.
Please read Bio's full statement. I think this action is excessive and will end up making popular [train station] a useless category. |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
jatayu, I don't want to make a huge fuss but I would like to point out the portion of my quote in your post is not contradictory; please read my complete explanation.
I'm not justifying the reason to include [station building] as a child of [train station] purely because it can be found [u:xqjoq55k]in[/u:xqjoq55k] it. If this was the case, I would have advocated platforms too, but this is not the purpose of nested categories.
While I don't want to see every categorized object found [u:xqjoq55k]in[/u:xqjoq55k] a train station returned in a search result for train stations, I would accept [station building] as an exception because it can be perceived as a train "station" by some people. The dots for [station building] will not be as intrusive as a plethora of dots marking various objects in a station but are not "train stations". Most station buildings are not marked anyway so the dot ratio will be minimal, but even if they are marked, the dots will be close together and not disruptive at all; the line of dots indicating routes will still be discernible.
cityrat and bio think the link back from [station building] to [railway] is pointless since the link back to [railway] is available through [train station]. I'm inclined to agree with them. |
|
|
|
Harooni
Joined: 19/04/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
cityrat proposal declined by Andyvolykhov by the same reason even before the category was created. We should 'foresee' and try to accept the fact that our decision will create problems in future.
I cannot see good reason to nest on the basis of its existence on the station's premise because it will largely compromise [train station] itself. You cannot see its effects currently as it is newly created category, but definitely will show-up in future. And, exceptions and restrictions cannot be made just for the sake of it. The red dots will be together, but only in zoom out levels and not when it is zoomed in - this anomaly is already depicted in the Pic on the next page. <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="wikimapia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=255571#p255571">viewtopic.php?p=255571#p255571<!-- l -->
I have put this matter before other Moderators. |
|
|
|
Teresa
 Joined: 16/10/06
Places: 10868
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
| While I see both sides of the argument, I do however wonder if someone searching for railway station, what is it they have in mind? To find where the train station is located or specifically to find the ticket office or train station building? I can only state my person preference, I do not care where the actual ticket building is located. I will assume if I find the train station, somehow I will find or see the building housing the ticket office/ticket counter. Majority of the train station buildings are within the complex of a train station. Also hard to locate within the context of Google Map (since basically this is the map page we use, even Bing or other map resources will show exactly the same) as they are often under the canopy of a railway complex. Based on my own experience, I think to have the building nesting within a train station seems to be logical. Of course for the railway or train enthusiast, they want to know not just the train station, train station building, but also the number of platforms and their locations. As such, they can also locate and find it under railway station. A further point, by putting [station building], [railway platform] as a child of [railway station] won't make those search redundant, users are still able to search and find them if needed. |
|
|
|
Harooni
Joined: 19/04/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
You see Teresa, there is only one reason why should station building be nested under railway station - and it is merely located in the train station.
[quote="Teresa":90vaod6o] A further point, by putting [station building], [railway platform] as a child of [railway station] won't make those search redundant, users are still able to search and find them if needed.[/quote:90vaod6o]
Yes, absolutely. But, then how can one search only train stations ?
The [railway-do not use] category is nicely depicting the objects related to railways infrastructure. |
|
|
|
Teresa
Joined: 16/10/06
Places: 10868
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
I had a further look at the structure of [railway] and all the child categories that is attached to it. I wonder if [railway] itself needed to be tidy up. Many of it's present child categories can either be a stand alone category, or else assigned new parents.
Quite a few are train operators, I think perhaps they should be given a new parent category of [railway operator].
[signal box] and [switch control house] have similar functions, may be one of them should be a stand alone category, with the other as synonym, beneath them a few children. For example [Interlocking] or may be [railroad turntable]? I have to admit I do not know if the job of turning a train round is the duty of a signalman. I assume the signalman needed to pull certain levers to turn the track round? [transfer table] share same function as a [railway turntable].
Lastly I think [railway station] should be a stand alone parent category with [station building], [railway reservation counter/centre] [railway terminus/terminal] as children.
Just my two cents for thought. |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="Teresa":2ycy59a8]I had a further look at the structure of [railway] and all the child categories that is attached to it. I wonder if [railway] itself needed to be tidy up. Many of it's present child categories can either be a stand alone category, or else assigned new parents.
Quite a few are train operators, I think perhaps they should be given a new parent category of [railway operator].
[signal box] and [switch control house] have similar functions, may be one of them should be a stand alone category, with the other as synonym, beneath them a few children. For example [Interlocking] or may be [railroad turntable]? I have to admit I do not know if the job of turning a train round is the duty of a signalman. I assume the signalman needed to pull certain levers to turn the track round? [transfer table] share same function as a [railway turntable].
Lastly I think [railway station] should be a stand alone parent category with [station building], [railway reservation counter/centre] [railway terminus/terminal] as children.
Just my two cents for thought.[/quote:2ycy59a8]
This needs serious consideration. While [railway] is good as the ultimate umbrella category, it is [u:2ycy59a8]not[/u:2ycy59a8] good enough to return granular searches for facilities and services found [u:2ycy59a8]only at[/u:2ycy59a8] train stations. Therefore, I would suggest creating a separate category tree which only covers train station objects and facilities. I recommend a [railway - public services] or something similar (which is do not use) as a starting point. This is a reasonable solution which is user-friendly for people using Wikimapia to look for train station facilities. If this can be implemented, it would then be logical to un-nest [station building] from [train station] so that the [railway] category tree is unaffected, whilst having a parallel category tree which is actually effective for train station facility searches. |
|
|
|
bio2935c
Joined: 15/12/06
Places: 1426
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="RK77":3d8cx3cj]... it is [u:3d8cx3cj]not[/u:3d8cx3cj] good enough to return granular searches for facilities and services found [u:3d8cx3cj]only at[/u:3d8cx3cj] train stations.[/quote:3d8cx3cj] I don't understand what this means. Perhaps if you gave an example??
[quote:3d8cx3cj]Therefore, I would suggest creating a separate category tree which only covers train station objects and facilities.[/quote:3d8cx3cj] And what does that mean? Is this meant to be for objects which are physically located "in" a train station? or something else?? |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="bio2935c":1se2e98x][quote="RK77":1se2e98x]... it is [u:1se2e98x]not[/u:1se2e98x] good enough to return granular searches for facilities and services found [u:1se2e98x]only at[/u:1se2e98x] train stations.[/quote:1se2e98x] I don't understand what this means. Perhaps if you gave an example??[/quote:1se2e98x]
As of now, [railway] returns everything railway related. It's not effective enough to return fine-tuned searches for specific types of railway related objects found only at train stations because the railway tree is too broad and covers railway related objects found outside of train stations too. Hypothetically-speaking, it could be useful to create a separate category tree, obviously subordinate to the primary [railway] tree, for searches focusing on categorized objects found only at train stations.
Searching with the [train station] term would obviously only yield train stations, but a second 'do not use' parent for it and other station related categories would yield exclusive search results for reservation counters, platforms, station buildings etc. this could be useful as a mini-category search tree for people looking for train station and related amenities.
[quote="bio2935c":1se2e98x][quote="RK77":1se2e98x]Therefore, I would suggest creating a separate category tree which only covers train station objects and facilities.[/quote:1se2e98x] And what does that mean? Is this meant to be for objects which are physically located "in" a train station? or something else??[/quote:1se2e98x]
Not so much objects found [u:1se2e98x]in[/u:1se2e98x] train stations, but for railway-related objects offering facilities and services only [u:1se2e98x]at[/u:1se2e98x] train stations. This supplementary tree would not be disruptive to the main [railway] tree because categories for objects which are train station related would be nested to both the primary railway tree and the supplementary tree. Essentially, train station related objects would have two parents whilst the two trees would remain independent of each other. It could also be useful in filtering objects found outside of the train station like ticket machines but are relevant enough as railway public service elements.
While [railway] is good for showing the railway infrastructure as a whole, a [railway - public services] (just one suggested name) would only cover categories which could prove useful for people searching for train station facilities. It is a secondary tree and not meant to disrupt the main [railway] tree since categories can have multiple parents too.
Imagine a member of the public using Wikimapia on his/her smart phone to look for train station facilities. If he/she was to key in "railway - public services" in the category search bar, he/she will see red dots indicating railway services geared towards public services. What this person won't see returned is results for switch controls, railway bridges, transfer tables etc. Does this makes sense from the perspective of user-friendly searches? |
|
|
|
Teresa
Joined: 16/10/06
Places: 10868
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="RK77":1rb6uren]Imagine a member of the public using Wikimapia on his/her smart phone to look for train station facilities. If he/she was to key in "railway - public services" in the category search bar, he/she will see red dots indicating railway services geared towards public services. What this person won't see returned is results for switch controls, railway bridges, transfer tables etc. Does this makes sense from the perspective of user-friendly searches?[/quote:1rb6uren]
What sort of 'public train facilities' you have mind? I can't think of any train facilities a member of the public using his/her smart phone wants to know apart from where is the station, what time the train leaves and where to purchase a ticket. Or what type of shops or restaurants that train station provides. Other than these, I can't think of any at the moment. The general public is very unlikely to want to know who is the train operator for instance. I only want to know if my train will arrive and leave on time, or if I am hungry after a long journey, is there a cafe I can eat something before my onward journey. In many large railway station, there could be more commercial type of facilities within a railway station, but I imagine these are hardly the type of public service you have in mind?
What you suggest of having a separate 'railway tree' I feel can be very confusing for users when they want to insert category. Not all users are well versed in the type of categories we have; and for the monitors watching his/her watchlist will also have a hard time to track and correct such entry. |
|
|
|
bio2935c
Joined: 15/12/06
Places: 1426
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="Teresa":2bkjjr1y]What you suggest of having a separate 'railway tree' I feel can be very confusing for users when they want to insert category. Not all users are well versed in the type of categories we have; ...[/quote:2bkjjr1y]I imagine that RK would want the actual 'top' of such a separate tree to be 'do not use for places', so no one would be adding it to anything, whereas it could be useful for searches.
[quote="RK":2bkjjr1y]...[/quote:2bkjjr1y]I have no objection to such a tree, but I would feel more comfortable if I could see an actual list of proposed categories that would fit under such a 'services' title. I confess I have trouble thinking of more than just the ticketing counter.
If we were discussing a non-services tree, featuring railroad infrastructure (sheds, platforms, etc) then it'd be easier for me to think of candidates, but I guess the theory is that these are sufficiently covered by the main [railway] category? |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="bio2935c":33nwlbxf][quote="Teresa":33nwlbxf]What you suggest of having a separate 'railway tree' I feel can be very confusing for users when they want to insert category. Not all users are well versed in the type of categories we have; ...[/quote:33nwlbxf]I imagine that RK would want the actual 'top' of such a separate tree to be 'do not use for places', so no one would be adding it to anything, whereas it could be useful for searches.[/quote:33nwlbxf]
This.
In an ideal or perfectionist world, we would have sub-categories for every variant of a particular facility, for example: [train station cafe], [train station restaurant], [train station restroom] etc. ([i:33nwlbxf][size=85:33nwlbxf]this sounds like OTT talk, but bear with me![/size:33nwlbxf][/i:33nwlbxf]) and they along with their other variants (e.g. [bus station cafe], [airport restaurant], [seaport restroom]) would be nested under [cafe], [restaurant], [restroom] respectively. Now, while this type of categorization would seem extravagant, it would have the potential to provide finer-tuned searches for places located in specific establishments which would otherwise be found everywhere, and returned everywhere using the main category tree. So, searches for facilities in a particular place like cafes in bus stations would only return cafes in bus stations across the map, no shopping mall cafes nor stadium cafes.
What does this have to do with [train station]? Well, if we had the aforementioned OTT categorization, we could nest train station specific amenities under the hypothetical "public train station services" parent category, thus providing an effective search which would serve to supplement the main category tree but not supplant it. Be that as it may, we can still use the same principles by nesting train station-specific or publicly accessible railway facilities to a theoretical tree
[quote="bio2935c":33nwlbxf][quote="RK":33nwlbxf]...[/quote:33nwlbxf]I have no objection to such a tree, but I would feel more comfortable if I could see an actual list of proposed categories that would fit under such a 'services' title. I confess I have trouble thinking of more than just the ticketing counter.
If we were discussing a non-services tree, featuring railroad infrastructure (sheds, platforms, etc) then it'd be easier for me to think of candidates, but I guess the theory is that these are sufficiently covered by the main [railway] category?[/quote:33nwlbxf]
Yes, the [railway] tree covers everything but a theoretical alternative would only cover categories which are publicly accessible thus of interest to travellers etc. The few categories which would fit under this tree would be: [train station], [railway reservation counter], [station building] and [railway platform]; I can't see anything else which would be interesting to travellers. I suppose one could attach localized operators but I feel this would be overkill and make the tree redundant since [railway] has everything covered: we would want the purpose of these two trees to be separate. The categories nested under this tree would seem insubstantial to justify its implementation, but the results returned in the form of dots on the map would be distinct and quite informative because they would only focus on a narrow slice of the overall [railway] category spectrum whilst omitting non-public related railway categories. |
|
|
|
bio2935c
Joined: 15/12/06
Places: 1426
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="RK77":3b8kpa5g]In an ideal or perfectionist world, we would have sub-categories for every variant of a particular facility, for example: ...[/quote:3b8kpa5g]I sincerely hope that such an "ideal" world remains hypothetical.
As for your suggested 'public services' tree, I don't see any real downside to it.
Let me offer a couple of only-slightly-off-topic thoughts about categories, however:
• I believe it was Teresa who said that if she wants to find services in a railway station, that if she just goes there and looks around, she would expect to be able to find things anyway, even if they haven't been tagged and categorized on WM. I would take this to mean that she does not believe that everything has to be categorized to the most precise possible category, nor perhaps even tagged at all. If so, I agree. To pick an example: if there's a restaurant in the train station, just calling it [restaurant] is enough. I just can't imagine that anyone in the real world would specifically be looking for [railway station restaurants] to the exclusion of other restaurants that might happen to be right across the street. If someone wanted to use WM to locate someplace to eat while stopping over at Xyz Station, filtering for [restaurant] will do the job; looking at the map will quickly reveal which ones are 'in' the station and which are not, if that is important.
• I believe it is too easy for us to get wrapped up in theoretical discussions here about what conceivable categories we could use for such-and-such a location. We tend to forget that people who are interested in finding what's what at a particular location/station will in fact just zoom in on the station and then mouse around and see what names get displayed in the popups. They can then read the descriptions if they want further details.
• Having said that, I do understand that a category can be very helpful if you're looking at a place which is described only in a language that is unfamiliar to you. The category is the one thing that you can 'use' in your own language to help you understand what you're looking at. |
|
|
|
Harooni
Joined: 19/04/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
I think we should nest [station building] back to [railway] and remove it's current nesting to [train station] first.
The [url=http://old.wikimapia.org/#&z=15&l=0&m=w&tag=731&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=731&lng=0&tab=hierarchy&search=public%20administration:2ik8tmds][railway][/url:2ik8tmds] hierarchy rightly corresponds with [url=http://old.wikimapia.org/#&z=15&l=0&m=w&tag=4084&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=4084&lng=0&tab=hierarchy&search=public%20administration:2ik8tmds][aviation][/url:2ik8tmds] hierarchy.
Nesting [station building] to [train station] is [u:2ik8tmds]equivalent[/u:2ik8tmds] to nesting [airport terminal] to [airport] category and also equivalent to nesting [roundabout island] to [roundabout / traffic circle] <!-- s:!: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" /><!-- s:!: --> |
|
|
|
viralparikh
Joined: 03/06/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
I have been reading thru this discussion for a while.
And I support the above said proposal by Jatayu. |
|
|
|
timper
Joined: 29/06/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
| Should the category [color=#FF0000:1m9cd9q6][dps][/color:1m9cd9q6] be added to category[color=#FF0000:1m9cd9q6] [school][/color:1m9cd9q6] as a child category <!-- s:?: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_question.gif" alt=":?:" title="Question" /><!-- s:?: --> |
|
|
|
bio2935c
Joined: 15/12/06
Places: 1426
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="acharyavasudev":ncen09lx]Should the category [color=#FF0000:ncen09lx][dps][/color:ncen09lx] be added to category[color=#FF0000:ncen09lx] [school][/color:ncen09lx] as a child category <!-- s:?: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_question.gif" alt=":?:" title="Question" /><!-- s:?: -->[/quote:ncen09lx]
Sure, why not?
But it should also be renamed to also include its full name, and the objects with this category should be vetted to exclude duplicates as well as the non-school objects. |
|
|
|
timper
Joined: 29/06/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="bio2935c":2jtuw729][quote="acharyavasudev":2jtuw729]Should the category [color=#FF0000:2jtuw729][dps][/color:2jtuw729] be added to category[color=#FF0000:2jtuw729] [school][/color:2jtuw729] as a child category <!-- s:?: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_question.gif" alt=":?:" title="Question" /><!-- s:?: -->[/quote:2jtuw729]
Sure, why not?
But it should also be renamed to also include its full name, and the objects with this category should be vetted to exclude duplicates as well as the non-school objects.[/quote:2jtuw729]
Yes, of course........I have already done the Hindi part.............and I take responsibility to edit correctly those currently tagged (68 objects). |
|
|
|
timper
Joined: 29/06/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="acharyavasudev":s9t67v5d][quote="bio2935c":s9t67v5d][quote="acharyavasudev":s9t67v5d]Should the category [color=#FF0000:s9t67v5d][dps][/color:s9t67v5d] be added to category[color=#FF0000:s9t67v5d] [school][/color:s9t67v5d] as a child category <!-- s:?: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_question.gif" alt=":?:" title="Question" /><!-- s:?: -->[/quote:s9t67v5d]
Sure, why not?
But it should also be renamed to also include its full name, and the objects with this category should be vetted to exclude duplicates as well as the non-school objects.[/quote:s9t67v5d]
Yes, of course........I have already done the Hindi part.............and I take responsibility to edit correctly those currently tagged (68 objects).[/quote:s9t67v5d]
Thanks but why it is so that not all [color=#FF0000:s9t67v5d]68[/color:s9t67v5d] objects are searchable through the new category[color=#FF0000:s9t67v5d] [delhi public school (dps)][/color:s9t67v5d] ?
Only 15-16 objects are searchable now!! |
|
|
|
Harooni
Joined: 19/04/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
| That's because I deleted all irrelevant objects that were attached to [dps]. You can view its [url=http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=18.979026&lon=72.773438&z=3&m=b&tag=8460&show=/user/tools/watchlist/?mode=tag&tag=8460&type=999:7uk7s6np]watchlist[/url:7uk7s6np]. |
|
|
|
timper
Joined: 29/06/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="jatayu":1eerg5o5]That's because I deleted all irrelevant objects that were attached to [dps]. You can view its [url=http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=18.979026&lon=72.773438&z=3&m=b&tag=8460&show=/user/tools/watchlist/?mode=tag&tag=8460&type=999:1eerg5o5]watchlist[/url:1eerg5o5].[/quote:1eerg5o5]
okay but DPS [color=#FF0000:1eerg5o5]Aligarh[/color:1eerg5o5], [color=#FF0000:1eerg5o5]NTPC Dadri[/color:1eerg5o5] and [color=#FF0000:1eerg5o5]Greater Noida[/color:1eerg5o5] were not searchable through this whereas all these tags were edited by me today itself. |
|
|
|
timper
Joined: 29/06/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
Should the category [color=#FF0000:359p5gj6][habitation][/color:359p5gj6] be merged with [color=#FF0000:359p5gj6][hemlet][/color:359p5gj6] as a synonym or be put under parent category [color=#FF0000:359p5gj6][administative division][/color:359p5gj6] separately <!-- s:?: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_question.gif" alt=":?:" title="Question" /><!-- s:?: -->
In India it is an official administrative division and being used for sub-villages (smaller units of a revenue village). |
|
|
|
kbrind
Joined: 03/04/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
| In the UAE, dps(delhi public school) is operate under the name of [b:3i7baqh9][color=#FF0000:3i7baqh9]Delhi Private School[/color:3i7baqh9][/b:3i7baqh9], because of local law restriction, "Public" word can not use by expatriate firm/organization. Can we use same category dps(delhi public school) for this schools in the UAE? Also there is one school under the same management, DPS Academy operating in Dubai. |
|
|
|
Harooni
Joined: 19/04/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="Vadgama":2mr9pvbh]In the UAE, dps(delhi public school) is operate under the name of [b:2mr9pvbh][color=#FF0000:2mr9pvbh]Delhi Private School[/color:2mr9pvbh][/b:2mr9pvbh], because of local law restriction, "Public" word can not use by expatriate firm/organization. Can we use same category dps(delhi public school) for this schools in the UAE? Also there is one school under the same management, DPS Academy operating in Dubai.[/quote:2mr9pvbh]
Yes, of-course. It is [url=http://dpsfamily.org/school-abroad.html:2mr9pvbh]listed[/url:2mr9pvbh] in its website. Does not matter if name differs. |
|
|
|
bio2935c
Joined: 15/12/06
Places: 1426
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="acharyavasudev":1ybzuo9v]Should the category [color=#FF0000:1ybzuo9v][habitation][/color:1ybzuo9v] be merged with [color=#FF0000:1ybzuo9v][hemlet][/color:1ybzuo9v] as a synonym or be put under parent category [color=#FF0000:1ybzuo9v][administative division][/color:1ybzuo9v] separately <!-- s:?: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_question.gif" alt=":?:" title="Question" /><!-- s:?: -->
In India it is an official administrative division and being used for sub-villages (smaller units of a revenue village).[/quote:1ybzuo9v]"Habitation" is such a vague concept in English I think we would be better off without this category. It may be that most in fact are hamlets, but probably not all. I would feel more comfortable if you dealt with them one by one. Assign them to [hamlet] or [village] or [sub-village] or whatever turns out to be most suitable.
I have done "something" with all the ones that were not in India and there are now only 80 remaining, so it should be not too difficult. |
|
|
|
kbrind
Joined: 03/04/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="jatayu":1t779ls2][quote="Vadgama":1t779ls2]In the UAE, dps(delhi public school) is operate under the name of [b:1t779ls2][color=#FF0000:1t779ls2]Delhi Private School[/color:1t779ls2][/b:1t779ls2], because of local law restriction, "Public" word can not use by expatriate firm/organization. Can we use same category dps(delhi public school) for this schools in the UAE? Also there is one school under the same management, DPS Academy operating in Dubai.[/quote:1t779ls2]
Yes, of-course. It is [url=http://dpsfamily.org/school-abroad.html:1t779ls2]listed[/url:1t779ls2] in its website. Does not matter if name differs.[/quote:1t779ls2]
Thanks for clarification. |
|
|
|
timper
Joined: 29/06/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="bio2935c":3gb4r5ou][quote="acharyavasudev":3gb4r5ou]Should the category [color=#FF0000:3gb4r5ou][habitation][/color:3gb4r5ou] be merged with [color=#FF0000:3gb4r5ou][hemlet][/color:3gb4r5ou] as a synonym or be put under parent category [color=#FF0000:3gb4r5ou][administative division][/color:3gb4r5ou] separately <!-- s:?: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_question.gif" alt=":?:" title="Question" /><!-- s:?: -->
In India it is an official administrative division and being used for sub-villages (smaller units of a revenue village).[/quote:3gb4r5ou]"Habitation" is such a vague concept in English I think we would be better off without this category. It may be that most in fact are hamlets, but probably not all. I would feel more comfortable if you dealt with them one by one. Assign them to [hamlet] or [village] or [sub-village] or whatever turns out to be most suitable.
I have done "something" with all the ones that were not in India and there are now only 80 remaining, so it should be not too difficult.[/quote:3gb4r5ou]
Okay got your point....
but one clarification needed
[color=#FF0000:3gb4r5ou] [administrative division][/color:3gb4r5ou] category contains many such child categories which are country specific and perhaps (i m not sure) vague in English then either those categories be deleted or edited as well or this categories can be included as well.One such category is [color=#FF0000:3gb4r5ou]Purok[/color:3gb4r5ou]. In India where there are over [color=#FF0000:3gb4r5ou]600000[/color:3gb4r5ou] villages, there are almost [color=#FF0000:3gb4r5ou]100000[/color:3gb4r5ou] habitations and nobody here is aware of any such thing as sub-village. |
|
|
|
bio2935c
Joined: 15/12/06
Places: 1426
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="acharyavasudev":2aqogi8w][color=#FF0000:2aqogi8w] [administrative division][/color:2aqogi8w] category contains many such child categories which are country specific and perhaps (i m not sure) vague in English then either those categories be deleted or edited as well or this categories can be included as well.One such category is [color=#FF0000:2aqogi8w]Purok[/color:2aqogi8w]. In India where there are over [color=#FF0000:2aqogi8w]600000[/color:2aqogi8w] villages, there are almost [color=#FF0000:2aqogi8w]100000[/color:2aqogi8w] habitations and nobody here is aware of any such thing as sub-village.[/quote:2aqogi8w]
Yes, there are a great many. More than I had realized, in fact. (and there are some that I think don't belong, but that's another story)
My opinion is that there is no problem with terms which are [u:2aqogi8w]not[/u:2aqogi8w] also common words in English. There should be no confusion about them. Those words which [u:2aqogi8w]are[/u:2aqogi8w] common terms in English, however, [u:2aqogi8w]are[/u:2aqogi8w] a problem and we should avoid using them - unless we rename them (adding an explanatory word/phrase, eg) so that they are less likely to be misunderstood.
Having read the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_India#Habitations:2aqogi8w]WP description of "habitation"[/url:2aqogi8w] it seems to me that the functions included can be equivalent to concepts like "school district" and "fire district", which I think we have already decided here should not be marked - for the reason that there is just no end to the number of overlapping administrative areas and if we mark them all then we end up with a really big mess on the map. If most of the habitations are also hamlets, then using [hamlet] should be sufficient, IMO.
As for [sub-village], I'll admit puzzlement too. I didn't understand why it needed to be added, but it was. Seems like a regional thing, even within India? |
|
|
|
timper
Joined: 29/06/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="bio2935c":2aaq1roj][quote="acharyavasudev":2aaq1roj][color=#FF0000:2aaq1roj] [administrative division][/color:2aaq1roj] category contains many such child categories which are country specific and perhaps (i m not sure) vague in English then either those categories be deleted or edited as well or this categories can be included as well.One such category is [color=#FF0000:2aaq1roj]Purok[/color:2aaq1roj]. In India where there are over [color=#FF0000:2aaq1roj]600000[/color:2aaq1roj] villages, there are almost [color=#FF0000:2aaq1roj]100000[/color:2aaq1roj] habitations and nobody here is aware of any such thing as sub-village.[/quote:2aaq1roj]
Yes, there are a great many. More than I had realized, in fact. (and there are some that I think don't belong, but that's another story)
My opinion is that there is no problem with terms which are [u:2aaq1roj]not[/u:2aaq1roj] also common words in English. There should be no confusion about them. Those words which [u:2aaq1roj]are[/u:2aaq1roj] common terms in English, however, [u:2aaq1roj]are[/u:2aaq1roj] a problem and we should avoid using them - unless we rename them (adding an explanatory word/phrase, eg) so that they are less likely to be misunderstood.
Having read the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_India#Habitations:2aaq1roj]WP description of "habitation"[/url:2aaq1roj] it seems to me that the functions included can be equivalent to concepts like "school district" and "fire district", which I think we have already decided here should not be marked - for the reason that there is just no end to the number of overlapping administrative areas and if we mark them all then we end up with a really big mess on the map. If most of the habitations are also hamlets, then using [hamlet] should be sufficient, IMO.
As for [sub-village], I'll admit puzzlement too. I didn't understand why it needed to be added, but it was. Seems like a regional thing, even within India?[/quote:2aaq1roj]
Sir!
Using [color=#FF0000:2aaq1roj][hamlet][/color:2aaq1roj] is no problem with me, I was just pointing out the mess in this [color=#FF0000:2aaq1roj][administrative division][/color:2aaq1roj] category. IMO if a term is an official administrative division for a large area such as India, it can be included into this category and the explainatory description phase can be added with it. If [color=#FF0000:2aaq1roj]Kampung[/color:2aaq1roj] and [color=#FF0000:2aaq1roj]Purok[/color:2aaq1roj] can be used by the virtue of uncommon words in English then [color=#FF0000:2aaq1roj]Mazra[/color:2aaq1roj] is such a word which is also used in govt. records and is a synonym of sub-village. |
|
|
|
Harooni
Joined: 19/04/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
| The term sub-village is being used by many mapping websites like ourhero.in and onefivenine.com. This term is equivalent to [hamlet] and was introduced because another user was tagging villages based on some external website resources. However, I agree that these terms 'sub-village' and 'habitation' may not be used as a standard throughout India, and may find reference only in some government project reports, which are meant only for classification purposes. These words are not standard and you will find people have innumerable different words within India. For example, the term 'Purva' (already translated in Hindi Page) is used for them in Northern Hindi speaking states, like these south Indians and Oriya have different terms. While [kampung] and [purok], etc are standard throughout their country, which is the reason why they are entered in english page as an independent one. The best solution to the variation of term 'sub-village' would be to compile all the terms used in other states and enter it into their respective language page rather than finding their place in English synonyms as the same word may have a different meaning in other country or region. |
|
|
|
timper
Joined: 29/06/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="jatayu":xri8zcgo]The term sub-village is being used by many mapping websites like ourhero.in and onefivenine.com. This term is equivalent to [hamlet] and was introduced because another user was tagging villages based on some external website resources. However, I agree that these terms 'sub-village' and 'habitation' may not be used as a standard throughout India, and may find reference only in some government project reports, which are meant only for classification purposes. These words are not standard and you will find people have innumerable different words within India. For example, the term 'Purva' (already translated in Hindi Page) is used for them in Northern Hindi speaking states, like these south Indians and Oriya have different terms. While [kampung] and [purok], etc are standard throughout their country, which is the reason why they are entered in english page as an independent one. The best solution to the variation of term 'sub-village' would be to compile all the terms used in other states and enter it into their respective language page rather than finding their place in English synonyms as the same word may have a different meaning in other country or region.[/quote:xri8zcgo]
Sir!
Why to look outside for the support and why not google maps which is most popular of them all..................Google does not use sub-village category but [color=#FF0000:xri8zcgo]sub-locality[/color:xri8zcgo] which is being used for both at village as well as town level. As far as [color=#FF0000:xri8zcgo]onefivenine.com[/color:xri8zcgo] is concerned, they are using the term [color=#FF0000:xri8zcgo]hamlet[/color:xri8zcgo] and not sub-village and also they don't have full access to all small habitations, and their info is full of errors i.e there is a village in Aligarh District called Madak they are saying it is in Tappal Tehsil whereas Tappal is not a tehsil but a block only, we can not rely on them.I could not find sub-villages as a term at [color=#FF0000:xri8zcgo]ourhero.in[/color:xri8zcgo] kindly give me a link for both the websites where I could find them.
I fail to understand that how[color=#FF0000:xri8zcgo] Purok[/color:xri8zcgo] and [color=#FF0000:xri8zcgo]Kampung[/color:xri8zcgo] are standard throughout their countries and [color=#FF0000:xri8zcgo]habitation[/color:xri8zcgo] is not in India. Why governemt records are being looked at as sub-standard.It is not a question of one term but a standard term which can be used for all, at least for a country, if not throughout the world.
Let us use hamlet for all small habitaitons and discard the use of many other terms such as purok, kampung, habitation etc. and use them as synonym of hamlet... !!! |
|
|
|
Harooni
Joined: 19/04/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="acharyavasudev ":2x2ljdn2]Why to look outside for the support and why not google maps which is most popular of them all.......I could not find sub-villages as a term at ourhero.in kindly give me a link for both the websites where I could find them[/quote:2x2ljdn2]
Scroll down at the bottom of the articles, they have mentioned the names of sub villages, also you can find user comments :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="www.onefivenine.com/india/villages/Hardoi/Todarpur/Manj...">www.onefivenine.com/india/villag ... r/Manjhila<!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="www.onefivenine.com/india/villages/Gonda/Tarabganj/Baha...">www.onefivenine.com/india/villag ... ahadur-Pur<!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="www.onefivenine.com/india/villages/Unnao/Asoha/Rampur">www.onefivenine.com/india/villag ... oha/Rampur<!-- m -->
All such websites do have place errors, even Google Map has lots of errors.
[quote="acharyavasudev":2x2ljdn2]I fail to understand that how Purok and Kampung are standard throughout their countries and habitation is not in India. Why governemt records are being looked at as sub-standard.[/quote:2x2ljdn2]
'Habitation' has lots of meaning and types, this is the 1st google result for the term <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://www.google.co.in/#q=habitation">https://www.google.co.in/#q=habitation<!-- m -->
Hence, there if we put this category in place, it will create total chaos which will be further compounded when others add there own language translations. I tried but I have not found the reference to the word online in Government records. There's a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_India#Habitations:2x2ljdn2]Wikipedia link[/url:2x2ljdn2] with information on the word 'habitation' as a admin division but has invalid references/source added.
[quote="acharyavasudev":2x2ljdn2]It is not a question of one term but a standard term which can be used for all, at least for a country, if not throughout the world.[/quote:2x2ljdn2]
We can surely help to put that 'standard' term as a category. I believe there's no standard term for India, or even if there who'll tell ? |
|
|
|
timper
Joined: 29/06/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="jatayu":2rey77w3][quote="acharyavasudev ":2rey77w3]Why to look outside for the support and why not google maps which is most popular of them all.......I could not find sub-villages as a term at ourhero.in kindly give me a link for both the websites where I could find them[/quote:2rey77w3]
Scroll down at the bottom of the articles, they have mentioned the names of sub villages, also you can find user comments :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="www.onefivenine.com/india/villages/Hardoi/Todarpur/Manj...">www.onefivenine.com/india/villag ... r/Manjhila<!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="www.onefivenine.com/india/villages/Gonda/Tarabganj/Baha...">www.onefivenine.com/india/villag ... ahadur-Pur<!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="www.onefivenine.com/india/villages/Unnao/Asoha/Rampur">www.onefivenine.com/india/villag ... oha/Rampur<!-- m -->
All such websites do have place errors, even Google Map has lots of errors.
[quote="acharyavasudev":2rey77w3]I fail to understand that how Purok and Kampung are standard throughout their countries and habitation is not in India. Why governemt records are being looked at as sub-standard.[/quote:2rey77w3]
'Habitation' has lots of meaning and types, this is the 1st google result for the term <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://www.google.co.in/#q=habitation">https://www.google.co.in/#q=habitation<!-- m -->
Hence, there if we put this category in place, it will create total chaos which will be further compounded when others add there own language translations. I tried but I have not found the reference to the word online in Government records. There's a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_India#Habitations:2rey77w3]Wikipedia link[/url:2rey77w3] with information on the word 'habitation' as a admin division but has invalid references/source added.
[quote="acharyavasudev":2rey77w3]It is not a question of one term but a standard term which can be used for all, at least for a country, if not throughout the world.[/quote:2rey77w3]
We can surely help to put that 'standard' term as a category. I believe there's no standard term for India, or even if there who'll tell ?[/quote:2rey77w3]
You have googled [color=#FF0000:2rey77w3]'habitation[/color:2rey77w3]'.......did you do same with[color=#FF0000:2rey77w3] hamlet[/color:2rey77w3] also............there is no search result which you may like....
Even hamlet have many meanings and types, which one you choose ? a village which has no church or an unincorporated community which is within a town and not a part of a village.......which one will you chose sir...!!
Sir!
Every language has it's own words and has it's own stamp on them and which can not be replaced by others but we have to take a middle path...thats why this word hamlet is synonym of sub-village other wise it has many differences with the similar words of other languages.
There is no system here to prove that proves the superiority of word hamlet over habitation...............we can easily use habitation for small villages too similarly as hamlet...........I do no press here for the term habitation but that does not mean hamlet is the only standard term..............
As far as the said link is concerned you just stopped at the website [color=#FF0000:2rey77w3]mdws.gov.in[/color:2rey77w3] kindly search the website for term habitation and you will see enough reports documents indicating that habitation is being used as a standard term in govt. records. There is a link in the left side where documents and reports are given , you can read them for further knowledge.
Why should one press for their own language terms...............they may..... as you have already given space for them by including terms such as kampung and purok which are local terms..................I don't think these are the words from native English language. Your [administrative division] category is in mess sir and that is even accepted by [color=#FF0000:2rey77w3]bio2935c[/color:2rey77w3] sir also.
It is correct that website onefivenine.com and such other sites have many errors but you are not correct about goggle maps specifically as far as village names and their approx location is concerned. They have obtained some gis data of India from some authentic source...though their data is litttle bit here and there but not totally incorrect. I am telling this about India only as I do not know about other countries.
Thanks & regards! |
|
|
|
Harooni
Joined: 19/04/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
Not going too off topic, I would like to make it clear that the category related work is Work-in-Progress. I didn't tell at any stage that the hierarchy is not a mess, yes it is, everyone knows. A lot of work has been done and a lot needs to be done.
I remember one point of time where [color=#0040FF:2w8k99mt]Teresa[/color:2w8k99mt] made [url=http://wikimapia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=236502#p236502:2w8k99mt]this post[/url:2w8k99mt], input was always awaited and now has been lost in the web of posts. Coming to the point, if that is what it is meant for - 'habitation' though was always present for use it was not used even a single time in India, but was filled with many different stuff from around the world. In the meantime, users opted for the term 'hamlet' instead or the regional translations in it. [url=http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=24.126702&lon=78.618164&z=5&m=w&tag=6860:2w8k99mt]Look[/url:2w8k99mt]. What may be the reason ? |
|
|
|
timper
Joined: 29/06/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="jatayu":vq0q3m8k]Not going too off topic, I would like to make it clear that the category related work is Work-in-Progress. I didn't tell at any stage that the hierarchy is not a mess, yes it is, everyone knows. A lot of work has been done and a lot needs to be done.
I remember one point of time where [color=#0040FF:vq0q3m8k]Teresa[/color:vq0q3m8k] made [url=http://wikimapia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=236502#p236502:vq0q3m8k]this post[/url:vq0q3m8k], input was always awaited and now has been lost in the web of posts. Coming to the point, if that is what it is meant for - 'habitation' though was always present for use it was not used even a single time in India, but was filled with many different stuff from around the world. In the meantime, users opted for the term 'hamlet' instead or the regional translations in it. [url=http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=24.126702&lon=78.618164&z=5&m=w&tag=6860:vq0q3m8k]Look[/url:vq0q3m8k]. What may be the reason ?[/quote:vq0q3m8k]
If this post of your closes the door on [color=#FF0000:vq0q3m8k][habitation][/color:vq0q3m8k], so it be !!!
P.S. - I never requested for the replacement of [color=#FF0000:vq0q3m8k][hamlet][/color:vq0q3m8k] with [color=#FF0000:vq0q3m8k][habitation][/color:vq0q3m8k] but for---
[color=#FF0000:vq0q3m8k]1.[/color:vq0q3m8k] should it be included as a child category in [color=#FF0000:vq0q3m8k][administrative division][/color:vq0q3m8k] ?
[color=#FF0000:vq0q3m8k]2.[/color:vq0q3m8k] should it be included under [color=#FF0000:vq0q3m8k][hamlet][/color:vq0q3m8k] as a [color=#FF0000:vq0q3m8k]synonym[/color:vq0q3m8k] ? |
|
|
|
timper
Joined: 29/06/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="acharyavasudev":31spmueg][quote="bio2935c":31spmueg][quote="acharyavasudev":31spmueg][color=#FF0000:31spmueg] [administrative division][/color:31spmueg] category contains many such child categories which are country specific and perhaps (i m not sure) vague in English then either those categories be deleted or edited as well or this categories can be included as well.One such category is [color=#FF0000:31spmueg]Purok[/color:31spmueg]. In India where there are over [color=#FF0000:31spmueg]600000[/color:31spmueg] villages, there are almost [color=#FF0000:31spmueg]100000[/color:31spmueg] habitations and nobody here is aware of any such thing as sub-village.[/quote:31spmueg]
Yes, there are a great many. More than I had realized, in fact. (and there are some that I think don't belong, but that's another story)
My opinion is that there is no problem with terms which are [u:31spmueg]not[/u:31spmueg] also common words in English. There should be no confusion about them. Those words which [u:31spmueg]are[/u:31spmueg] common terms in English, however, [u:31spmueg]are[/u:31spmueg] a problem and we should avoid using them - unless we rename them (adding an explanatory word/phrase, eg) so that they are less likely to be misunderstood.
Having read the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_India#Habitations:31spmueg]WP description of "habitation"[/url:31spmueg] it seems to me that the functions included can be equivalent to concepts like "school district" and "fire district", which I think we have already decided here should not be marked - for the reason that there is just no end to the number of overlapping administrative areas and if we mark them all then we end up with a really big mess on the map. If most of the habitations are also hamlets, then using [hamlet] should be sufficient, IMO.
As for [sub-village], I'll admit puzzlement too. I didn't understand why it needed to be added, but it was. Seems like a regional thing, even within India?[/quote:31spmueg]
Sir!
Using [color=#FF0000:31spmueg][hamlet][/color:31spmueg] is no problem with me, I was just pointing out the mess in this [color=#FF0000:31spmueg][administrative division][/color:31spmueg] category. IMO if a term is an official administrative division for a large area such as India, it can be included into this category and the explainatory description phase can be added with it. If [color=#FF0000:31spmueg]Kampung[/color:31spmueg] and [color=#FF0000:31spmueg]Purok[/color:31spmueg] can be used by the virtue of uncommon words in English then [color=#FF0000:31spmueg]Mazra[/color:31spmueg] is such a word which is also used in govt. records and is a synonym of sub-village.[/quote:31spmueg]
[color=#FF0000:31spmueg]category [habitation] is cleaned up now[/color:31spmueg] !! |
|
|
|
Teresa
Joined: 16/10/06
Places: 10868
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="acharyavasudev":34ctfnxe]
[color=#FF0000:34ctfnxe]category [habitation] is cleaned up now[/color:34ctfnxe] !![/quote:34ctfnxe]
Thank you!! |
|
|
|
amps
Joined: 12/05/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
I have not found a category "[b:1p4murs9]quarantine[/b:1p4murs9]" or "[b:1p4murs9]quarantine station[/b:1p4murs9]" for animals, plants and fish, which are generally found in the international airport, seaport and post office or container/freight/cargo terminals, or in the border states. This office is usually used as detention against the shipment of animals, plants or other objects suspected of carrying germs, or prevent smuggling against certain species protected
I usually give the "office" category, but actually less specific.
This category of existing quarantine, but less appropriate for use in animals, plants and fish
[url=http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=-6.1744&lon=106.8294&z=10&l=0&m=b&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=46390&lng=0&tab=main:1p4murs9][color=#00BF00:1p4murs9]quarantine zone/building (en) 36[/color:1p4murs9][/url:1p4murs9]
Sample Object :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="old.wikimapia.org/#lat=-8.5412024&;lon=118.6927082&z=18&l=0&m=b&show=/7085652/id/">old.wikimapia.org/#lat=-8.541202 ... 085652/id/<!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="old.wikimapia.org/#lat=-6.1180216&;lon=106.6829964&z=18&l=0&m=b&v=8&show=/17595035/id/Balai-Besar-Karantina-Pertanian-Soekarno-Hatta">old.wikimapia.org/#lat=-6.118021 ... arno-Hatta<!-- m -->
Thank you |
|
|
|
JAT86
 Joined: 21/06/08
Places: 231
Userlevel: -2 |
| 10 years ago |
0 |
Currently, the category [region] is a [b:3h0tr9e3]CHILD[/b:3h0tr9e3] of [administrative division]. In my opinion, I believe it [u:3h0tr9e3]should be the other way around[/u:3h0tr9e3]. There are two reasons. One is that an administrative division is defined as "a portion of a country or other REGION delineated for the purpose of administration".
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_division">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_division<!-- m -->
The other reason is that [region] as a function category could be used to [u:3h0tr9e3]automatically show all rivers underneath of all administrative division child categories[/u:3h0tr9e3]. It will eliminate the burden of painstakingly adding [region] to each and every tag that has an [administrative division] child category. |
|
|
|
seafordian
Joined: 24/07/07
Places: 6146
Userlevel: -2 |
| 10 years ago |
0 |
[quote="JAT86":3vk8sglv]Currently, the category [region] is a [b:3vk8sglv]CHILD[/b:3vk8sglv] of [administrative division]. In my opinion, I believe it [u:3vk8sglv]should be the other way around[/u:3vk8sglv]. There are two reasons. One is that an administrative division is defined as "a portion of a country or other REGION delineated for the purpose of administration".
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_division">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_division<!-- m -->
The other reason is that [region] as a function category could be used to [u:3vk8sglv]automatically show all rivers underneath of all administrative division child categories[/u:3vk8sglv]. It will eliminate the burden of painstakingly adding [region] to each and every tag that has an [administrative division] child category.[/quote:3vk8sglv]
Agreed, it should be the other way around. Region is a major geographic concept, it should be atop ANY hierarchy! |
|
|
|
detgfrsh
Joined: 08/07/09
Places: 2076
Userlevel: -2 |
| 10 years ago |
0 |
| A note: please do [b:buakfm6s]not[/b:buakfm6s] put [invisible] as the parent of a category unless you are sure that [i:buakfm6s]every single one[/i:buakfm6s] of the tags in that category should be invisible! I just removed invisible from [metro station]. It's fine for the underground metro stations, but remember that some metro stations are at ground level or elevated. No reason to have those be invisible too. |
|
|
