[Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Sat Mar 28 21:48:47 UTC 2020


On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 3:39 PM Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Richard Fairhurst::
>
>> If you need somewhere for a mapper-facing route description (and I can
>> see that you need that for “part United Kingdom 5”), then I guess the
>> obvious place to put that is the note= tag. But let’s keep it out of the
>> name tag; and let’s have a concerted effort to remove them from existing
>> name tags.
>
>
> I was under the impression the note=* tag is for mapper's notes about the
> object.
> I would think the best tag for a descriptive text would be the
> description=* tag.
>
> Question about the ref=* tag: should a ref be something visible along the
> route?
>

Generally, and that's one of the reasons relations were introduced as a
primitive in API 0.5 13 years ago.  Because multiplexed routes are a thing,
not only between the same network but within multiple networks (such as a
way that has a bus route, a county and a state bike route, is part of a US
historic highway, and a current state highway), and ref=* on a way to
describe a specific kind of route that traverses it makes very little sense.

Can we please kill ref=* on way already?  Please?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200328/5f798c5a/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list