ご返信ありがとうございます！

Thank you for such detailed yet concise documentation of this situation. I’m also interested in the issue of tags for the “international use” of names. Sometimes it really is difficult to distinguish what counts as name:en, what is name:uk-Latn (in our case, in Ukraine), and what should be int_name.

From discussions on an English-language forum, I came to understand (or at least I think I did) that:

• name:en — names widely used by English speakers; established exonyms
• name:uk-Latn — secondary names present on signs in Ukraine; a pure romanization of the Ukrainian name, a secondary Latin-script form derived from Ukrainian Cyrillic, intended for international visitors
• int_name — a hybrid of transliteration and translated generic terms; outdated exonyms that have passed from Russian into Latin script

There is also a very cumbersome alternative to int_name, but it is viewed quite skeptically by the community, to put it mildly, even though it explains the structure of the names most precisely.

• Outdated Russian exonyms in Latin script for Ukrainian cities — old_name:und-Latn-t-ru (syntax description: an old name in an unspecified Latin script, transformed from a Russian name)
• Hybrid names with a transliterated specific term and a translated generic term — name:uk-Latn-t-en-h0-hybrid (syntax description: a Ukrainian name (uk) written in Latin script (Latn), transformed under the influence of English (-t-en), and representing a hybrid mixture of languages (h0-hybrid))

I wrote this message not as a proposal, but simply as some possible food for thought for the Japanese community. Thanks again!

Congrats! Also a fellow micromapping enthusiast :)

Great article, especially the diagram! Really cool to reflect on the tagging system from this perspective.

As a member of the Ukrainian OSM community, I want to say that your feelings deeply resonate with me. I understand the frustration when political realities are treated as neutral facts on a map — especially when those “facts” stem from military occupations or violations of international law.

I honestly don’t know what the best solution is when it comes to handling disputed territories within a global volunteer project like OSM, or if a truly fair solution is even possible. But I do believe that the so-called neutrality of the “on-the-ground control” principle is deeply flawed. A map of borders is inherently political — it reflects choices, values, and interpretations of legitimacy. Pretending that “physical control” alone is apolitical oversimplifies very real and painful histories for many communities.

We are all contributors from different countries, backgrounds, and political contexts. It’s unrealistic to expect that a single mapping policy can feel fair or neutral to everyone, especially when it echoes the logic of the aggressor.

Hi @neuhausr, Thanks a lot for your kind words about the improved design — I really appreciate it! Just a note that the version shown here is slightly outdated — the latest version has already been updated on the wiki at this link: osm.wiki/File:Railway-station-tagging.svg

In the latest version, the yellow callout now includes the text “Members of the relation, highlighted in yellow” to help make that connection clearer. Still, thank you for the thoughtful suggestion — it’s a valuable point!

@tordans, thanks for the feedback! I’ll try to implement it in the new version of the diagram. In the meantime, please check out the current version in the OpenStreetMap community discussion thread. Feel free to join the discussion there, as the version posted here is already quite outdated.