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
