[Tagging] Names on relations and not component ways

[dies38061 at mypacks.net]

Thanks for the several comments from people.  I decided to remove the relation and name each component way individually.  I referred to this conversation in the changeset meta-data (source and source_ref).  Regards --ceyockey.


-----Original Message-----
>From: Werner Hoch <werner.ho at gmx.de>
>Sent: Jan 6, 2013 4:54 PM
>To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] Names on relations and not component ways
>
>Hi ceyockey,
>
>Am Freitag, den 04.01.2013, 08:43 -0500 schrieb dies38061 at mypacks.net:
>> I recently created a waterway where I put the name of the waterway 
>> on the relation but not on the component ways which are grouped by 
>> the relation.  
>> This results in the name of the waterway not appearing in the standard 
>> Map view. 
>
>AFAIR there's currently no relation type that inherits it's tags to the
>member ways, so that the name tags are rendered on the map.
>
>Road routes do not inherit there ref tags to the highways,
>associatedStreets do not inherit there street name to the highway
>segments. Those relations use duplicate tags, too.
>
>There's only one rarely used concept of tag inheritance:
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multilinestring
>that is AFAIR not supported by the renderers.
>
>> I am wondering what current best practice is. 
>> Should name be applied to both component ways and relation, 
>> or is application of name to relation sufficient.  
>
>For waterways, adding one name to ways and all names to the relation is
>at least "useful". Longer waterways (rivers) sometimes do not have the
>same name over the complete length, because they flow across different
>countries.
>
>e.g. The Danube river:
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/89652
>
>> To me, not duplicating data would seem to be the better overall 
>> practice, and duplication of name on relation and component ways 
>> would seem to be a case of tagging-for-the-renderer.  
>
>IMHO, redundancy is not always a bad thing. Just do not add too much.
>
>
>> (p.s. the waterway in question => http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2676618)
>
>For that short waterway it wouldn't create a waterway relation [1], as
>the benefits of the extra relation are low.
>* no international names required
>* no wikipedia reference
>* the waterway has the same name on all segments.
>* no gnis reference tag, ...
>
>[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:waterway
>
>Regards
>Werner (werner2101)
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging