Alternatively, we can add both `name:zh-Latn-pinyin` and `name:cmn-Latn-pinyin` , so that it is clear this is a software limitation. Hopefully this will discourage people from adding `name:yue=` .

You can say the names in Cantonese and Mandarin is the same. Unfortunately, this will simply encourage people to add `name:yue=` .

`name:zh=` could be interpreted as Cantonese in the form of Standard Written Chinese as well. Fundamentally `zh` would easier to be understood as Written Chinese. Language as spoken, which is what romanization is concerned with, would be better posed with using the more precise encompassed language.

And don't forget, there is `operator:zh=` , `brand:zh=` , `addr:*:zh=` is etc. That's the amount of work that has to be dealt with here.

How is the comparison the same? `name:zh=` is perfect in Taiwan, as Mandarin is dominant. But Cantonese is what's used in HK.
`name:zh=` is practically interpreted as Mandarin, as seen in iD. This causes more work in HK when people keep adding `name:yue=`, and even not adding `name:zh=` at first. The easiest solution is to interpret `name:zh=` as Cantonese in HK.
`zh` is a macrolanguage. The situation in HK calls more "precise" differentiation, which is "valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course." .
As `name=` is the most common name, `name:zh-Latn=` is best be equivalent to `name:yue-Latn=` . This doesn't fit `name:zh-Latn-pinyin=` .
If people see `name:zh-Latn-pinyin` , this will reinforce the image that `name:zh=` means Mandarin. The use of `name:yue=` will be encouraged, and this risks more `name:zh=` not being added.

If you suggest "If Cantonese being included in `zh` in OSM here, then its arguably this creates problems for, at least, Wikimedia sites using OSM." , then it seems you need to discuss a proposal with HK and Macau to redefine `name:zh=` to mean Mandarin, and start using `name:yue=` by standard. However, redefinition of such standard usually doesn't work.

That is, `name:cmn-Latn` and `name:cmn-Latn-pinyin` to be used. Otherwise, you cause an awkward situation where there is `name:zh-Latn=` and `name:yue-Latn` .
The international standards can also be read critically. Viz `jyutping` has `Prefix: yue` , but `zh-Latn-pinyin` is used instead of `zh--pinyin` for some reason. This doesn't serves the aim of consistency.

It seems you are basically asking everything in HK to be retagged to `name:yue=` ?
That was partly my personal opinion. What I'm saying is `name:cmn=` should be used in HK.

Please read the rest
"

o Each encompassed language's subtag SHOULD be used as the primary
language subtag. For example, a document in Mandarin Chinese
would be tagged "cmn" (the subtag for Mandarin Chinese) in
preference to "zh" (Chinese).

o If compatibility is desired or needed, the encompassed subtag MAY
be used as an extended language subtag. For example, a document
in Mandarin Chinese could be tagged "zh-cmn" instead of either
"cmn" or "zh".
"
"

As noted above, applications can choose to use the macrolanguage
subtag to form the tag instead of using the more specific encompassed
language subtag. For example, an application with large quantities
of data already using tags with the 'zh' (Chinese) subtag might
continue to use this more general subtag even for new data, even
though the content could be more precisely tagged with 'cmn'
(Mandarin), 'yue' (Cantonese), 'wuu' (Wu), and so on. Similarly, an
application already using tags that start with the 'ar' (Arabic)
subtag might continue to use this more general subtag even for new
data, which could be more precisely tagged with 'arb' (Standard
Arabic).
"

`Prefix` is a "SHOULD", not a "MUST". When there are multiple encompassed language as seen here, using the encompassed language is clearer. OSM is also starting fresh for scripts, not burdened by any compatibility which only existed as non-compliant `name:zh_pinyin` .

I don't see what's your argument for the situation in HK and Macau. I didn't talk about `zh-HK` either.
`zh` means Standard Written Chinese or Cantonese in OSM here. We already have enough work with `name=` , `name:en=`, and `name:zh=` . Then people like to add `name:yue=` further because they think `name:zh=` means Mandarin, which is worsened by iD.

That being said, I believe if more subtags from `*-Latn` to `*-Latn-pinyin` is specified, using `cmn` would be wise anyway. `zh` is only needed for compatibility at a simple level.

For reference "Each encompassed language's subtag SHOULD be used as the primary language subtag. For example, a document in Mandarin Chinese would be tagged "cmn" (the subtag for Mandarin Chinese) in preference to "zh" (Chinese)." https://www.ietf.org/rfc/bcp/bcp47.html#section-4.1.2
I don't oppose using `zh` for PRC and Taiwan. But this would be different in HK and Macau.

Also I still don't see your wiki page?

`zh` would mean Cantonese or Standard Written Chinese in Hong Kong. It's not reliably treated as Mandarin.

Can you please discuss this first, as you have been warned before? HK has `yue` which makes `zh` unclear.

@InsertUser I thought I want to see if DWG has anything to say in the other edit. Also, at least one expressed support over `=classroom` itself osm.wiki/Talk:Key:room#Classrooms

I don't see any update on previous changeset/157698378

Don't use `=permissive` . That means allowed. It's `=private` .

Besides, another requirement is you need to create a wiki page to document this editing. On a minor note, it doesn't help that Telegram is a limited visibility service that others can't see the whole conservation publicly without joining.