[Tagging] Route names: [Was: Use of the name=* on features internal to named areas]

[Kevin Kenny]

>
>
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 1:17 PM Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry, I misread the subject.
>
OK.  I edited the subject line.  :)

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 1:14 PM Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com> wrote:

> On a slightly different angle, I am trying to reduce the misuse of the
> name tag in route relations. Part of the reason for this is the appearance
> and sorting of the routes in lists. Especially when routes have been split
> into sections, to get a nice section list people tend to include section
> number, start and destination, and all sorts of numbers, codes, even
> operator, colour, length and difficulty, all in the name tag with a rich
> variety of punctuations... (yes, I am guilty of this misuse myself. Making
> amends, though!)
>

There's some room for judgment here.

There are a lot of trails around here for which the colour of the paint
blaze is the only name.  It tends to get promoted to a proper name when
referring to the trail, particularly if it's the only trail with the color
in the given park.  (Blue Trail, like
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11015328,  is therefore a common
thing to tag as the name, and not exactly wrong, quite.) In some cases this
even carries over into signage - I've certainly seen signs for Red Cross
Trail https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4266618, White Bar Trail,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5480736, Blue Disc Trail
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5621674, Triangle Trai
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5621651 and the like.

I'll concede that including the blaze colour on Oliverea-Mapledale Trail
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/280416600 is poor practice, and I'll fix
it in a day or two once people have looked at it as an illustration of what
Peter is complaining about. It's not part of the name.  In that case,
however, Oliverea and Mapledale - the two endpoints - are indeed part of
the proper name. That convention does give rise to some awkward names -
'Giant Ledge - Panther - Fox Hollow Trail' (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20198486) surely doesn't trip off the
tongue, but that's what the signs and maps say.

I think it's mostly harmless to include a section number (particularly if
signed) or a stage name - especially when using a super-relation for a
route that's unmanageable otherwise.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/919642 is an example where the
super-relation would be hard to manage otherwise.

It comes down to, "is it the name - what the thing is called - or is it
ancillary information?" Ancillary information belongs in other tags.
('Description' is a tag of last resort: we have structured tags for most of
the things you mentioned.)

Including the ancillary information of color, operator, origin,
destination, etc. in the name is indeed inappropriate - unless the route
takes its proper name from one or more of the attributes, which many do.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201231/f1801c66/attachment.htm>