Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 at 17:15, Yves via Tagging wrote: > It's never to late to fix a mistake? > Yves > > Probably best for that fix to have an approved proposal too to mitigate the risk of an edit war. > > Le 23 octobre 2023 09:46:05 GMT+02:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > >> >> On 22/10/23 19:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >>> >>> sent from a phone >>> >>> On 20 Oct 2023, at 10:23, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >>> wrote: maybe just removing this bad advise without proposal would be a good idea >>> +1 >>> -- >>> >> >> >> Issue: that wording is in the approved proposal for PTv2 ... >> >> Removing the wording is 'a good idea' .. but that would go against the >> approved proposal .. catch 22. >> -- >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations
It's never to late to fix a mistake? Yves Le 23 octobre 2023 09:46:05 GMT+02:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit : > >On 22/10/23 19:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> sent from a phone >> >>> On 20 Oct 2023, at 10:23, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >>> wrote: >>> >>> maybe just removing this bad advise without proposal would be a good idea >> +1 >> ___ > > >Issue: that wording is in the approved proposal for PTv2 ... > >Removing the wording is 'a good idea' .. but that would go against the >approved proposal .. catch 22. > > >___ >Tagging mailing list >Tagging@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations
On 22/10/23 19:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 20 Oct 2023, at 10:23, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: maybe just removing this bad advise without proposal would be a good idea +1 ___ Issue: that wording is in the approved proposal for PTv2 ... Removing the wording is 'a good idea' .. but that would go against the approved proposal .. catch 22. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations
sent from a phone > On 20 Oct 2023, at 10:23, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > maybe just removing this bad advise without proposal would be a good idea +1 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations
On 20/10/23 10:32, Paul Johnson wrote: On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 2:31 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: On 17/10/23 23:22, Paul Johnson wrote: On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:51 AM Warin <61sundow...@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'. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 2:31 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 17/10/23 23:22, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:51 AM Warin <61sundow...@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. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations
On 18/10/23 19:15, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Oct 18, 2023, 09:30 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: On 17/10/23 23:22, Paul Johnson wrote: On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:51 AM Warin <61sundow...@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 = /: → "/ / / 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? / / ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations
Oct 18, 2023, 09:30 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > > > > On 17/10/23 23:22, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at4:51 AM Warin <>> 61sundow...@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 ortwo >>> 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 whereever >>> the name tag is used. This is similar for othertags such as >>> elevation, width, colour etc. No matterwhat feature they >>> are used on the tags carry the samecharacteristics and >>> restrictions. It is not necessary torepeat these >>> characteristics and restrictions for everymain feature. >>> >>> >> Routes have names, too! For example, here's the relationfor 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 namethat 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 describedno-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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations
On 17/10/23 23:22, Paul Johnson wrote: On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:51 AM Warin <61sundow...@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.. In some cases where I have come across it I have simply stated 'The name tag is for the name only. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only' and I follow it up by making the correction/s. Don't think I have ever had an argument about it. The https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/331438 use of the name tag goes back 14 years ago ... to a mapper who was only just starting out.. The ref tag came along some 3 years later... You may find similar historical sources for the use of the name tag... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations
Oct 17, 2023, 11:49 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > > > > On 17/10/23 04:17, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> Presently, it's common for route relations to havenames 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? > > See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Use_description_instead_of_name_for_route_relations#Examples name=Tram 64 (nocny): Bronowice Małe => Os. Piastów from https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3171712 is an example this tram line has no name "Tram" is additionally wrong as not matching local language and "nocny" part) useful label could be made from ref=* from=* to=* tags and there is no need at all for this fake name. Note that info that it is a night tram is not provided in any structured form, only as part of the fake name. This fake name should be removed and info that it is a night tram put into some tag or into description=* ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations
On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:51 AM Warin <61sundow...@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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations
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. On Sun, Oct 8, 2023, 10:24 Volker Schmidt wrote: Could you give some more examples to illustrate what the problem is that you want to resolve. On Sun, 8 Oct 2023, 00:23 Kevin Kenny, wrote: On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 4:50 PM Andrew Hain wrote: I have started a new proposal: that the name tag should be restricted to the same meaning for route relations that it has on other elements and that the description tag should be used otherwise. The proposal is unclear and appears to deprecate route and way names of a form that are common around here for what I consider to be good reasons. (In any case, 'description' appears to be an inappropriate tag for whatever it is you are proposing.) More details on the talk page. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations
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. On Sun, Oct 8, 2023, 10:24 Volker Schmidt wrote: > Could you give some more examples to illustrate what the problem is that > you want to resolve. > > > On Sun, 8 Oct 2023, 00:23 Kevin Kenny, wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 4:50 PM Andrew Hain >> wrote: >> >>> I have started a new proposal: that the name tag should be restricted to >>> the same meaning for route relations that it has on other elements and that >>> the description tag should be used otherwise. >>> >> >> The proposal is unclear and appears to deprecate route and way names of a >> form that are common around here for what I consider to be good reasons. >> (In any case, 'description' appears to be an inappropriate tag for whatever >> it is you are proposing.) More details on the talk page. >> -- >> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations
Could you give some more examples to illustrate what the problem is that you want to resolve. On Sun, 8 Oct 2023, 00:23 Kevin Kenny, wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 4:50 PM Andrew Hain > wrote: > >> I have started a new proposal: that the name tag should be restricted to >> the same meaning for route relations that it has on other elements and that >> the description tag should be used otherwise. >> > > The proposal is unclear and appears to deprecate route and way names of a > form that are common around here for what I consider to be good reasons. > (In any case, 'description' appears to be an inappropriate tag for whatever > it is you are proposing.) More details on the talk page. > -- > 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations
On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 4:50 PM Andrew Hain wrote: > I have started a new proposal: that the name tag should be restricted to > the same meaning for route relations that it has on other elements and that > the description tag should be used otherwise. > The proposal is unclear and appears to deprecate route and way names of a form that are common around here for what I consider to be good reasons. (In any case, 'description' appears to be an inappropriate tag for whatever it is you are proposing.) More details on the talk page. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
