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

Andrew Harvey andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 1 00:00:19 UTC 2021

On Fri, 1 Jan 2021 at 08:29, Minh Nguyen <minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us>

> 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210101/b5427b9b/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list