[Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net
Sun Mar 29 20:28:27 UTC 2020

Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
> These days I wonder if it wouldn't be better if we introduce a 
> tag that explicitly contains the name only. How about 
> official_name for a, well, official name of the route and 
> local_name for one that is used by everybody else.

Interesting thought. That really isn't a terrible idea. Well, ok, it _is_ a
terrible idea in that one really shouldn't have to explain that the name tag
is for the name and the ref tags is for the number, but we are where we are;
and changing current usage appears likely to encounter resistance from the
usual tedious sludgifiers.

I'm slightly nervous of officlal_name because it's prone to sludgifiers
(previous message refers). I wonder whether route_name= might work best if a
reasonable definition were formulated? Something like "The popularly
accepted name (and name only) for the whole route, excluding route number
and geographical/similar qualifiers", illustrated with a set of examples.
Yes, the key's a bit tautologous, but we have thousands of route=bicycle
with route=?cn where the "c" stands for "cycle", so that's already a lost


Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

More information about the Tagging mailing list