Hi Brian, > Generally I don't think adding names to bus stops adds anything to the map > other than when it is an Interchange name- so they're the only ones I name. > Why? Generally because adding a name consisting of a street name where the > street name is already on the map I consider to be cartographic clutter and > totally redundant. Common names also tend to duplicate features that are > already named on the map and so are not really needed. For transport > applications the data is there to be used - no need to add it in a name.
To be honest, I don't agree with you there. Tagging for the renderer (not giving bus stops names because it would create a clutter) is usually seen as a bad idea, and I believe that's the case here as well. First, on the one hand the default rendering doesn't display bus stop names anyway, so there it wouldn't become a clutter. On the other hand, the Transport Map layer displays bus stops names on low zoom level, and street names only on the highest levels, so there the bus stop names would be useful to get an overview. Also don't forget that we are not creating a map, we are creating a geographical database. For example, you might want to ask your software for the closest bus stop. It would be nice if you could then get the bus stop name as an answer, for which the name tags are necessary. Or for example, you might want to generate a list of all stops of a given bus route, for which you also need the stop names. Also, not all common names are named after features already on the map (some are called 'middle' for example). For now, I think the best scheme I can think of would be "StreetName, CommonName". That would follow the name on the signs, except that we use a comma where there is a line break on the shield. -- Matthijs _______________________________________________ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
