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

[Warin]

On 20/10/23 10:32, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>

Confusing is probably the issue here?

I am taking of 'the name tag' possibly I should have said the 'OSM key 
name' .. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name

Not taking of any individual feature with a 'name tag'.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20231020/608ca728/attachment.htm>