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

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 11:02 2020-12-31, Kevin Kenny đã viết:
> 
> 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 
> <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.

I wholeheartedly agree, but then there's this longstanding guidance on 
the wiki for bus routes [1]:

> The 'name' of a bus route should follow a specific format and is not the official name of the bus route. This tag is more of a description of the route than the actual name of the route. To add the name, use the following format: "name"="Bus <ref>: <from> => <to>". If the bus route has a "via", you can use "name"="Bus <ref>: <from> => <via> => <to>", however using via in the name is optional. Note that "->", "-->", or "→" can be used instead of "=>". Use which ever style you like. As long as the ref=*, from=*, and to=* tags are filled out, data users can create their own names however they prefer.
> 
> If the bus route is a round trip, the "to" and "from" tags will be the same, causing a rather silly bus route name to be tagged (eg. Bus 27B: Downtown => Brightley => Downtown). In the case of such a bus route, you can choose to use "Bus <ref>" as the name. Example: name=Bus 27B.
In other words, the name tag is supposed to contradict what's on the 
ground, and the format must be maintained manually in a freeform key 
rather than structured keys. This is "tagging for the editor" that may 
have been necessary at one point for practical reasons, but now it's 
simply a glaring exception to the definition of the most important 
non-feature key in OSM. Mappers and data consumers have raised 
objections to this convention numerous times in the past. [3-10]

I think it's time we deprecate this format in favor of only tagging 
"name" when there's a verifiable name. If any editors still lack support 
for the "ref", "from", and "to" tags, fixing that issue seems like a 
necessary step so that data consumers can regain confidence in the name 
tag on route relations.

[1] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/2073385#Step_2_-_Create_the_new_bus_relations
[2] Apologies to fans of "source", "addr:housenumber", and 
"addr:street", which do appear more frequently.
[3] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/1639262#name_as_.22prose_description.22.3F
[4] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/1639263#Use_proper_typography_in_Route_names
[5] 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-September/030169.html
[6] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-May/045180.html
[7] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2019-May/019507.html
[8] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-March/051787.html
[9] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Buses#Bus_Route_Naming
[10] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/2081034

-- 
minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us