Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

2020-04-01 Thread Richard Fairhurst
Yves wrote: > Inevitably, the current situation is stained by the abilities of the > actual renderer, and the other way around. Maybe those renderers > should sit around a wiki page and document how ideal tag could be > and how they can be used in rendering, also taking into account > the abili

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

2020-04-01 Thread Peter Elderson
Suggestion for rendering: What about osmc:name=* I know, doesn't exist, but it's a logical companion of osmc:symbol. Definition would be: name to show on the map. Definition should be: just the simple name as found in the field, or the nae ecerybody knows and uses, no extra's. As with osmc:symb

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Unifying playground equipment tagging)

2020-04-01 Thread Sören Reinecke via Tagging
> You are proposing to abandon the distinction between playgrounds and implicit features on them (properties) and things on a playground (explicitly mapped playground equipment as a feature). Not really, playground equipment (tagged with 'playground:') on a feature tagged with its main tag 'leisur

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

2020-04-01 Thread Peter Elderson
Sorry if this appears twice - I got a bounce message first time. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op wo 1 apr. 2020 om 12:50 schreef Peter Elderson : > Suggestion for rendering: > > What about osmc:name=* > > I know, doesn't exist, but it's a logical companion of osmc:symbol. > > Definition would be: name