see comments here: changeset/62123015

see comments here: changeset/62123015

see comments here: changeset/61766931

see comments here: changeset/61766931

see comments here: changeset/61766931

see comments here: changeset/61766931

see comments here: changeset/61766931

see comments here: changeset/61766931

see comments here: changeset/61766931

see comments here: changeset/61766931

see comments here: changeset/61766931

see comments here: changeset/62123015

see comments here: changeset/62123015

Can you tolerate, that common name can be different from short name, which is used in catalogues in such form for purposes of alphabetical order and for purposes of automatisation of object analysis? Here we see, that normal name (which is normally used, for example, in rgis) is a little bit longer, than short name. It is not an issue.
Why do you think, that rgis is a bad source? Is it because of rgis using of normal names?

Can you tolerate, that common name can be different from short name, which is used in catalogues in such form for purposes of alphabetical order and for purposes of automatisation of object analysis? Here we see, that normal name (which is normally used, for example, in rgis) is a little bit longer, than short name. It is not an issue.
If there is nothing to discuss here, why do continue making edits, which offer objections? We have to discuss or to follow the existing rules.

Can you tolerate, that common name can be different from short name, which is used in catalogues in such form for purposes of alphabetical order and for purposes of automatisation of object analysis? Here we see, that normal name (which is normally used, for example, in rgis) is a little bit longer, than short name. It is not an issue.
If there is nothing to discuss here, why do continue making edits, which offer objections? We have to discuss or to follow the existing rules.

If there is nothing to discuss here, why do continue making edits, which offer objections? We have to discuss or to follow the existing rules.

Can you tolerate, that common name can be different from short name, which is used in catalogues in such form for purposes of alphabetical order and for purposes of automatisation of object analysis? Here we see, that normal name (which is normally used, for example, in rgis) is a little bit longer, than short name. It is not an issue.

Adding of normal/common/natural name is not a tagging for render. Tag name is designated, curios to relate, for name. P. S. You wrote several hundreds comments "Edits for render" during a few hours. Shouldn't one detailed answer from human be better than several hundreds automatically written identical short phrases?

Check http://rgis.spb.ru/map/ShowPlace.aspx?id=179241 : "Наименование: Цветочный пруд". Please, stop multiply changing of names and using suppressed names.