[Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:51 AM Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 17/10/23 04:17, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> Presently, it's common for route relations to have names that violate
> "name is only the name" and "name is not ref" and "name is not description"
> rules for name=* tags.
>
>
> I don't find it common in 'my area' of mapping. One or two examples would
> demonstrate the situation?
>
>
> In any case:
>
> The name tag is used on may things for example; buildings, parks, schools,
> highways ...
>
> The use of the name tag as 'name only' applies where ever the name tag is
> used. This is similar for other tags such as elevation, width, colour etc.
> No matter what feature they are used on the tags carry the same
> characteristics and restrictions. It is not necessary to repeat
> these characteristics and restrictions for every main feature.
>
Routes have names, too!  For example, here's the relation for OK 51, named
for the name of the route.  https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3108562

Meanwhile, I 40 in Arkansas has a good example of a name that is actually a
ref and a description, not a name.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6843700

 Finally, OK 19 is an example of a properly described no-name route.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7479405
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20231017/28ee870c/attachment.htm>