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
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
