[Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description
lonvia at denofr.de
Sun May 12 08:30:42 UTC 2019
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 09:26:02AM +0200, Markus wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 00:19, Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> wrote:
> > OK, so I tested and I renamed one of the many bus routes I'm maintaining, moved from name to description. And you know what: both JOSM and the web interface now show the ref instead of the description, so until that gets resolved there is not very much chance people will want to move from the name tag to the description tag.
> I know, this is why i misued the name tag, too. I mentioned that in my
> previous emails. 
> : https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-May/045180.html
> : https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-May/045186.html
> I'll file enhancement requests to the editors as soon as we find a
> consensus. Currently, it seems that for hiking routes, using the
> description tag instead of the name tag for route descriptions is
> undispued, but, oddly, for public transportation routes it is not.
In my experience, the course of the route is the most used descriptive
name fo nameless routes.
So, how about adding a new tag "itinerary"? This would contain a simple
"<from> - <via> - ... - <to>". Works for simple routes (no vias) and
longer ones (two or three vias). As a data consumer, the advantage
is that it would have a semi-fixed format that is easily parsable
(for example: not enough display space? Drop the vias.)
I believe that tag would work for PT routes as well, although it seems
they would need a "headsign" tag in addition.
NB: you can already change what tag is displayed as name for relations
in JOSM. Go to "Advanced settings" and search for the setting
"relation.nameOrder". There you can state a list of tags that JOSM
should try for the display name. I've recently added 'symbol' there and
now I can finally get rid of all the "Gelber Strich" hiking route names
in the area.
More information about the Tagging