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

[Warin]

On 18/10/23 19:15, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>
>
> Oct 18, 2023, 09:30 by 61sundowner at gmail.com:
>
>
>     On 17/10/23 23:22, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>
>>
>>     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
>
>
>     Ok. I still don't see a necessity of repeating the name tag
>     information inside the relation tag...
>
> this proposal wants to remove wrong advise that advocates adding fake 
> names to
> relations
>
> maybe just removing this bad advise without proposal would be a good idea


Arrr now I see it !

This only applies to the 'name' 'advice' on PTv2

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport#Service_routes

has

"name = /<type of transport><reference number>: <from> → <to>"/

/
/

That would mean the name tag contains the information already in the 
other tags... redundant.

The Australian 'India Pacific' train journey has the name 'India 
Pacific' .. no 'train', nor ref nor from nor to...

  The Russian 'Trans Siberian' train journey .. South African 'Blue 
Train' etc etc.. none of these real names translate to the above PTv2 
'name'.


Does this proposal only apply to the PTv2??? If so why not say so?

/
/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20231018/f4655e7a/attachment.htm>