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

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 2:31 AM Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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... Will you also repeat the ref tag information,
> the description tag information? How about the surface tag, maxspeed tag
> etc etc..
>
The name of the route has nothing to do with the name of the member ways.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20231019/311aec36/attachment.htm>