reverted, name:be added to some

fixed

changed tags to proposed

fixed

name tags restored

reported to DWG

I (and possibly others) messaged him before trying to understand his logic and guide him, but got no reply, so has been wary of his changes

has the construction started on those?

int_name is already filed correctly, in accordance with http://www.pravo.by/pdf/2007-159/2007-159%28027-028%29.pdf

nevermind, done

a forum topic needs to be started on this, and approval from DWG would be nice, before doing anything

Anyone with josm at hand, please revert

@Jay May I believe you might've mixed up monuments (which include Lenin statues and the like) with historical/touristy places, like castles etc. Different things, certainly the historical pois (especially the important/popular ones) would usually have a name:be as well.
Regarding the switch, automated would be easier, faster and less error-prone, I assume. Needs to be checked anyway

It certainly will look similar, at least at first.
@Poliakoff Mykhailo if we are talking technical points now, such a switch would introduce challenges not only for those without a "ў"-supporting keyboard, but also those confused by 2 languages used side-by-side in similar contexts, be it administrative buildings or addr.
Regarding your tourism point, it is more of a question to tourism authorities and businesses. While some are kinda trying to insert some Belarusian here and there, it is mostly done as a "local peculiarity" type of thing, rather than out of one's national identity realisation. Most of their business comes from Russians/russian speakers, so I can't really blame them. This is what happens when you only focus on one market.

@Jay May
>for toponyms, monuments, and administrative levels
This should work fine for admin levels (100% bilingual I believe). Toponyms will need some work (last figure I've seen was around 70%?), while monuments is debatable, but alas.
Indeed, at the time the convention was agreed there was much less progress on be naming, and working towards it was and remains one of the goals of the local community (one would think).

>Belarus is the only former USSR country where the use of Russian has increased. That is a matter of fact. However, all toponyms are in Belarusian
This is (perhaps sadly) not always the case. If you transit/travel through Belarus you might get the impression that Belarusian is indeed used universally, however this is not true. Whether this is because local law permits names/addr in 2 languages, or because nobody really controls it properly is another matter.
Due to this, irregularities/errors will appear on the map, with a chaotic mix of rus/bel names, leading to a (perceived) decrease in map quality, consistency and, most notably, challenges for existing data users.
Switching to Belarusian yielded such challenges for Google/Apple, with search errors and misspelling from what I've seen.
While mapping Belarus in Belarusian is the logical and right thing to do, it lags behind, whether due to community makeup or lack of interest.
I would propose creating a task group to first of all assess the scale and viability of ru->be switch. Once the requirements are somewhat set, the community can see how much is done and needs doing.
In the meantime, the current scheme is to be left in place.
This way we can at least shorten and smooth out the transition period.
Did anyone elevate this argument btw?

While most of you here provide convincing arguments in favour of name:be->name, yaugenka is correct in pointing out name:be tags don't even cover some areas. Belarusian OSM community has long wanted/struggled to do the switch, but it would leave a map in disarray and possibly introduce challenges for data users. Following Ground Truth principles is made difficult when two languages are used for addressing/naming interchangeably and with little oversight from the authorities.

если обьект не открыт его либо не наносят, либо ставят теги (start_date/ proposed)

Hi wille,
Thanks for commenting on the change set. I am aware of wikimapia license limitations. What I should have used instead of "sources" there is "references", as I occasionally cross-reference data with wikimapia entries. Hope that clears it up. Regards, Anton

понятно, спасибо, оставил 1