[OSM-talk-be] Regional walking networks

Tue Oct 11 18:12:05 UTC 2011

Ben Laenen wrote:

>On Tuesday 11 October 2011 16:49:00 Gerard Vanderveken wrote:
>  
>
>>We want to tag for the people and for usabillity.
>>
>>The current reasoning is flawed.
>>
>>-The route between 2 points in a network has no name, so we do not tag a
>>name in OSM.
>>    
>>
>
>Congratulations. Now if only we can end the discussion here...
>
The problem is that the discussion starts here. It is not because there 
is no sign of it, that there is no name for these routes.
Internally the managing people of the network uses also this 'route from 
12 to 34'  name in one or other form for the route segments to list 
their equipment (signposts) and to identify problems etc (See eg 
routedokter)

>>-People can't work well with unnamed objects, so we give the route a
>>name by using start point number - end point number
>>    
>>
>
>I must be some kind of superhuman apparently since I was able to map these 
>routes for years using Potlatch 1?
>
Maybe, but we (and certainly I) aren't. 
But I think that you are no longer working in Potlatch for relations, as 
seeing the names in JOSM. is much more handy
Errors were made, some of which could be prevented if the name was in 
its name tag.
Eg Check out how many duplicated routes were removed by Polylot's edits 
during the last weeks.
The point is that now the note tag is used to store the name of the route.

>>-Since the route has no name, we can't use the name  tag  and so we put
>>the name in the note tag.
>>    
>>
>
>It's a note helping editors to describe what the relation actually is. The 
>note has always been there to help fellow mappers and yourself later to get a 
>bit more information on the object.
>
It is only helping in JOSM, were it is displayed in lists.
The others are and will stay out of luck.
They have to check all objects one by one to find out which is which and 
that is not very practical.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1698153
Which one is  186-246?
In Potlatch, when you want to add a way to a relation, you get exact the 
same meaningless list of id numbers.
Which one to pick?

>>A purist point of view is made, which is then compromised in the wrong
>>way and this leads to these discussions over and over again.
>>Do simply what is needed and have this name where it belongs. In the
>>name tag.
>>This will be the end of this ever recurring discussion.
>>    
>>
>
>
>And if you start using the name tag, you'll find that you have to write 
>exceptions for everything using the data since it suddenly has routes with a 
>name which it shouldn't present as its name. See what happens with the Lonvia 
>map. And there is no simple way to solve this, you'll have to sort it out 
>manually.
>  
>
I'm quite pleased with the result on the Lonvia hiking map. Thank you.
http://hiking.lonvia.de/?zoom=14&lat=50.80698&lon=4.62237

If you don't want to use the name tag, because that  name might be 
rendered, and then put it in the note tag, you are also tagging for 
(against) the renderers.
Exactly as the objection of Eimai is in the trac
https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/4017#comment:9

" Using the name tag would be an abuse. These routes simply don't have
 names, the networks do. Sure we can invent some pretty names to be shown
 in the relation lists, but then we'd need to special case every renderer
 that wants to actually render these routes to discard names of just these
 networks. That's not the better option. "

It is also tagging for the renderer, because one might not be pleased 
with the rendered result.

>>If it is purity that has to come first, then we should have no note tag
>>as well and those note tags should be deleted?
>>    
>>
>
>Why is the note tag not appropriate for this usecase?
>
>If your only issue is helping with the editing of data, invent some other tag 
>(mapper_and_editor_friendly_description=* or whatever) and try to get support 
>for that in the editors.
>
>Suppose you have some exotic object you want to tag and there's no way to map 
>it yet, would you also put its description in the name tag? (Bad example 
>perhaps, as some actually do this.)
>
>
>It's not a name, and for some reason you agree that it's not a name, yet you 
>still want to tag it as a name. (*)
>
>
>(*) where "it" is some predefined arbitrary description which follows some 
>rules on the wiki which would also be subject to some discussion: should we 
>use abbreviations? Should it include what kind of network it is? What language 
>should it be in?
>
>The fact that you have to invent a name first is reason enough for me to not 
>tag it as such.
>  
>
12-34 is a name. It is maybe not the best name or the only name 
possible, but it is one. People who read it know over which route 
relation we are talking. And so it should not be in the note, but in the 
name tag.
We don't need support for some additional tags that might or might not 
get supported. The name tag is appropriate and always supported.
The language is no issue as they are simply in the language of the 
'operator'

Strictly speaking, the bus routes don't have a name either.
There is a bus with a number that follow the route from A to B, but that 
is it, yet all routes are named in the 'operator number from via to' scheme.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1708295
Why should the routes on node networks be different and may not have 
their name?

>>We are lucky that JOSM supports this note tag, otherwise there was no
>>way of managing those networks in a decent way.
>>(Maybe a feature request to 'unsupport' this tag in JOSM is in order?)
>>
>>With the note tag as it is now, we can also not differentiate the routes
>>from the different networks, because eg 12-34 can be part of a walking
>>or biking network.
>>The current practice is from the time that only one
>>node network existed.  Now that ways or regions can be part of several
>>networks,  an update is needed.
>>    
>>
>
>There are other tags in the relation, you know. And who says that the note tag 
>can only have these numbers, write whatever you want in it, there's no agreed 
>form for the note tag. As long as it somehow helps you and other people later 
>to understand what the object is.
>
>And for that matter, "Scheldeland 12-13" also won't tell you if it's a bicycle 
>route or a walking route.
>  
>
How to make up the name for the  note tag is clearly described in the Wiki.
The point is not that you can tell if it is a walking or biking network, 
but that you can see that with 'XXX 12-34' and 'YYY 12-34', there are 
two different networks involved and you can make the right selection.

Regards,
Gerard.

>Greetings
>Ben
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20111011/0574c3cb/attachment.htm>