Misuse of name tag for route description

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
38 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Misuse of name tag for route description

Markus-5
Regarding the recent changes (from 6 May 2019‎) to the wiki page
"Public transport" about the misuse of the name tag for route
descriptions (e.g. name="701: Samedan Bahnhof - Le Prese Stazione").
[1]

[1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Public_transport&action=history

I agree that the route description (from - to) is not its name. By the
way, the same problem also affects hiking routes. I must admit that
i've also misued the name=* tag this way. The reason are the editors:
if a route is only tagged with ref=*, from=*, to=* (and description=*)
and if more than one route variant or direction uses the same
highway=*, one loses track of the routes and it becomes almost
impossible to maintain them because editors only display the ref=*
value in the relations list (e.g. there were multiple "13").

I think it were be the best if editors would also display from=* and
to* (or, instead, description=*) if there is no name=tag, in order
that the name=* tag can be kept for routes that really have a name=*
(e.g. Via Alpina).

(I'm sending this email to the tagging mailing list as it doesn't only
concern public transportation routes.)

Regards

Markus

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of name tag for route description

Hufkratzer
It would probably better to use description=* than from=* and to=*
because not all routes have a named starting point or destination point,
like e.g. a roundtrip route around some village.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of name tag for route description

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by Markus-5
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:11 AM Markus <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I agree that the route description (from - to) is not its name. By the
> way, the same problem also affects hiking routes. I must admit that
> i've also misued the name=* tag this way.

Many of the hiking trails around here have formal names that look like
descriptions. Many are named for endpoints, with possible intermediate
waypoints: "Van Hoevenberg Trail to Mount Marcy", "Elk Lake Trail to
Mount Marcy", :Elk Lake to Lilian Brook Trail" "Giant Ledge-Panther
Mountain-Fox Hollow Trail", "Northville-Placid Trail", "Oliverea to
Mapledale Trail", "Ramapo-Dunderberg Trail", "Suffern-Bear Mountain
Trail"  to name just a handful out of dozens, if not hundreds. There
are also trails that are named for their waymarks: "Red Cross Trail",
"Blue Disc Trail" and "White Bar Trail" are the formal names of the
routes.

The published route descriptions at sites like
https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/9150.html include these descriptive
names. In the linked page, 'Long Path,' 'Curtiss-Ormsbee Trail' and
'Burroughs Range Trail' are most likely what you'd consider proper
names, but all the other names merely are taken from the endpoints.

Please don't assume that every name that looks like a description is
simply a stopgap. Obviously, if you know you've misused the
description as the name, fix it, but where the guidebooks and signs
agree that the description is the name, please leave it alone.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of name tag for route description

Markus-5
In reply to this post by Hufkratzer
On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 13:50, Hufkratzer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> It would probably better to use description=* than from=* and to=*
> because not all routes have a named starting point or destination point,
> like e.g. a roundtrip route around some village.

That's true. I didn't think about that.

Regards

Markus

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of name tag for route description

Markus-5
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3
Hi Kevin,

On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 17:35, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Please don't assume that every name that looks like a description is
> simply a stopgap. Obviously, if you know you've misused the
> description as the name, fix it, but where the guidebooks and signs
> agree that the description is the name, please leave it alone.

Don't worry, i don't plan to retag such route names you listed! :) The
routes i have in mind are public transport routes and *unnamed* hiking
routes that currently are tagged name="[<route ref>: ]<departure> -
<destination>" -- not just by myself. Note that the wiki [1] and the
approved PTv2 scheme [2] recommend using the name tag in this way.

[1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport#Service_routes
[2]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?oldid=625726#Route

If the community (or rather its majority) agree that the name tag
shouldn't used that way and as soon as the editors display the route's
description in the relations list [3], i'll fix my mistakes.

[3]: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Dialog/RelationList

Regards

Markus

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of name tag for route description

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Markus-5
Currently description of route is recommended to be mapped in name tag.

It clearly should be placed in description tag, with name tag used for a name of the route.

I plan on amending Wiki this way, despite that proposal recommended misuses of name tag.

Please comment if such edit would not advisable in your opinion.

10 May 2019, 12:07 by [hidden email]:
Regarding the recent changes (from 6 May 2019‎) to the wiki page
"Public transport" about the misuse of the name tag for route
descriptions (e.g. name="701: Samedan Bahnhof - Le Prese Stazione").
[1]


I agree that the route description (from - to) is not its name. By the
way, the same problem also affects hiking routes. I must admit that
i've also misued the name=* tag this way. The reason are the editors:
if a route is only tagged with ref=*, from=*, to=* (and description=*)
and if more than one route variant or direction uses the same
highway=*, one loses track of the routes and it becomes almost
impossible to maintain them because editors only display the ref=*
value in the relations list (e.g. there were multiple "13").

I think it were be the best if editors would also display from=* and
to* (or, instead, description=*) if there is no name=tag, in order
that the name=* tag can be kept for routes that really have a name=*
(e.g. Via Alpina).

(I'm sending this email to the tagging mailing list as it doesn't only
concern public transportation routes.)


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of name tag for route description

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Markus-5



10 May 2019, 18:16 by [hidden email]:
as the editors display the route's
description in the relations list [3], i'll fix my mistakes.


Is there an opened issue at JOSM bug tracker requesting that change?

I requested something similar once and it was added quickly.

See instructions at https://josm.openstreetmap.de/newticket for how one may create
a new issie.


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of name tag for route description

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 18:40, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
Currently description of route is recommended to be mapped in name tag.

My natural inclination would be to put the name of the service, as displayed on the bus
itself, in the name tag.  But maybe that's just me.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of name tag for route description

Markus-5
On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 20:00, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> My natural inclination would be to put the name of the service, as displayed on the bus
> itself, in the name tag.  But maybe that's just me.

What kind of name are displayed on these buses? Around here, buses,
trains etc. usually only display the route number (or route type) and
their destination (e.g. "701 Le Prese Stazione", "201 Villeneuve", "IR
Chur" or "IC 3 Basel SBB"). Route names (e.g. "Bernina Express",
"MetropolitanLine" or "Marunouchi Line") seem to be quite rare.

Regards

Markus

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of name tag for route description

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Markus-5


sent from a phone

> On 10. May 2019, at 18:16, Markus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> If the community (or rather its majority) agree that the name tag
> shouldn't used that way and as soon as the editors display the route's
> description in the relations list [3], i'll fix my mistakes.


I don’t take issue from public transport routes having names that are from-to descriptions, and would not be too sure that „these are clearly not names“, often they may be seen as names.
I don’t think that these should be retagged to description, because descriptions contain any kind of information which may often not be suitable as a name.

Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of name tag for route description

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Markus-5
On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 21:26, Markus <[hidden email]> wrote:

What kind of name are displayed on these buses? Around here, buses,
trains etc. usually only display the route number (or route type) and
their destination (e.g. "701 Le Prese Stazione", "201 Villeneuve", "IR
Chur" or "IC 3 Basel SBB"). Route names (e.g. "Bernina Express",
"MetropolitanLine" or "Marunouchi Line") seem to be quite rare.

Usually destination.  Except for the Cardigan Town Service.  But with PTV2 routes split into
two (or more relations), one for each direction, this isn't a problem.  The bus from Cardigan
to Aberystwyth says "Aberystwyth" and the bus from Aberystwyth to Cardigan says "Cardigan."
Elsewhere I've lived the bus might say XXX to YYY via ZZZ.

I like the idea that the name of the bus, as shown on the map, is the same as the name of the
bus, as shown on the bus.  It means I can look at the map and know what to look for on an
approaching bus.  Not having the two correspond is unhelpful, if not downright perverse.

Route number alone is insufficient.  Not when there can be variant routes.

Of course, that all presumes the bus company is sane and rational.  Unlike my local bus
company.  The 408 is a merger of the 406 Cardigan Town Service and the 407 Cardigan to
St Dogmaels routes.  It displays "Cardigan Town Service and St Dogmaels" for most of its
route around Cardigan.   Then displays "Cardigan Town Service" as it sets off for St Dogmaels.
Except when it's on a variant school run, when the drivers decide to call it the 405, although it
isn't, because they think 405 means school service (it doesn't).  The 405 is a school service
between a particular part of Cardigan and the primary school.  WIth what should be the 408
parked next to it, you have to ask the driver if it's the real 405 or the fake 405.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of name tag for route description

Warin
On 11/05/19 07:07, Paul Allen wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 21:26, Markus <[hidden email]> wrote:

What kind of name are displayed on these buses? Around here, buses,
trains etc. usually only display the route number (or route type) and
their destination (e.g. "701 Le Prese Stazione", "201 Villeneuve", "IR
Chur" or "IC 3 Basel SBB"). Route names (e.g. "Bernina Express",
"MetropolitanLine" or "Marunouchi Line") seem to be quite rare.

Usually destination.  Except for the Cardigan Town Service.  But with PTV2 routes split into
two (or more relations), one for each direction, this isn't a problem.  The bus from Cardigan
to Aberystwyth says "Aberystwyth" and the bus from Aberystwyth to Cardigan says "Cardigan."
Elsewhere I've lived the bus might say XXX to YYY via ZZZ.

I like the idea that the name of the bus, as shown on the map, is the same as the name of the
bus, as shown on the bus.  It means I can look at the map and know what to look for on an
approaching bus.  Not having the two correspond is unhelpful, if not downright perverse.

Route number alone is insufficient.  Not when there can be variant routes.

If the bus/train only shows the route number .. then name = route number ???
Around me most buses show the route number and the destination .. or something like the destination depending on the service.


Of course, that all presumes the bus company is sane and rational.  Unlike my local bus
company.  The 408 is a merger of the 406 Cardigan Town Service and the 407 Cardigan to
St Dogmaels routes.  It displays "Cardigan Town Service and St Dogmaels" for most of its
route around Cardigan.   Then displays "Cardigan Town Service" as it sets off for St Dogmaels.
Except when it's on a variant school run, when the drivers decide to call it the 405, although it
isn't, because they think 405 means school service (it doesn't).  The 405 is a school service
between a particular part of Cardigan and the primary school.  WIth what should be the 408
parked next to it, you have to ask the driver if it's the real 405 or the fake 405.




_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of name tag for route description

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Paul Allen


sent from a phone

> On 10. May 2019, at 23:07, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I like the idea that the name of the bus, as shown on the map, is the same as the name of the
> bus, as shown on the bus.


just because the bus shows the name of the destination it doesn’t mean this is the “name of the bus”. It remains the destination. And just because the number and destination are the most useful piece of information when boarding a bus, it doesn’t mean that it is also the most useful information for a list or a map (origin is not important on the go, but it is for an “inventory”)

Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of name tag for route description

Johnparis
I agree with Martin. Often the bus itself has route maps, etc., inside the bus that have more information than can be displayed on the external sign. 

For bus routes, at least, there is an established convention for the name tag. I have mapped hundreds of such routes. It is definitely NOT a "misuse". 

Cheers,
John

On Sat, May 11, 2019, 16:10 Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:


sent from a phone

> On 10. May 2019, at 23:07, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I like the idea that the name of the bus, as shown on the map, is the same as the name of the
> bus, as shown on the bus.


just because the bus shows the name of the destination it doesn’t mean this is the “name of the bus”. It remains the destination. And just because the number and destination are the most useful piece of information when boarding a bus, it doesn’t mean that it is also the most useful information for a list or a map (origin is not important on the go, but it is for an “inventory”)

Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of name tag for route description

Markus-5
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 23:09, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I like the idea that the name of the bus, as shown on the map, is the same as the name of the
> bus, as shown on the bus.  It means I can look at the map and know what to look for on an
> approaching bus.  Not having the two correspond is unhelpful, if not downright perverse.
>
> Route number alone is insufficient.  Not when there can be variant routes.

I agree that it's helpful to see route number and/or origin and
destination on maps, but that doesn't mean that we have to store that
information in the name=* tag, which is usually used to store names,
not descriptions. Renderers could just as well display the route's
description by combining ref=* and/or name=* (depending on what's
used) plus from=* [, via=*] and to=*, e.g.:

ref=201
from=Vevey Funiculaire
to=Villeneuve Gare

name=Metropolitan Line
from=Aldgate
to=Watford

or by displaying the description=* tag in case there are different
route variants, for example during rush hour, at the weekend or in the
evening.

Regards

Markus

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of name tag for route description

Markus-5
In reply to this post by Markus-5
On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 18:16, Markus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 13:50, Hufkratzer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > It would probably better to use description=* than from=* and to=*
> > because not all routes have a named starting point or destination point,
> > like e.g. a roundtrip route around some village.
>
> That's true. I didn't think about that.

But circular lines or trips have an intermediate stop or location,
thus it should work with via=* even if from=* and to=* are the same.

Regards

Markus

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of name tag for route description

Jo-2
And I like to see all that prepended with the name of the operator...

Polyglot

On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 7:32 PM Markus <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 18:16, Markus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 13:50, Hufkratzer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > It would probably better to use description=* than from=* and to=*
> > because not all routes have a named starting point or destination point,
> > like e.g. a roundtrip route around some village.
>
> That's true. I didn't think about that.

But circular lines or trips have an intermediate stop or location,
thus it should work with via=* even if from=* and to=* are the same.

Regards

Markus

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of name tag for route description

Markus-5
In reply to this post by Johnparis
On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 17:05, Johnparis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> For bus routes, at least, there is an established convention for the name tag. I have mapped hundreds of such routes. It is definitely NOT a "misuse".

It seems quite popular, but it doesn't agree with how the name=* tag
is usually used.

Regards

Markus

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of name tag for route description

Mateusz Konieczny-3



11 May 2019, 19:47 by [hidden email]:
On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 17:05, Johnparis <[hidden email]> wrote:

For bus routes, at least, there is an established convention for the name tag. I have mapped hundreds of such routes. It is definitely NOT a "misuse".

It seems quite popular, but it doesn't agree with how the name=* tag
is usually used.
The problem is that typical use of name tag for public transport routes is a misuse of name tag,
and that using name tag as description is accepted by a proposal.

The question is whatever it requires separate proposal to fix old proposal or is invoking
general rule "name tag is for name, description tag is for description" sufficient.


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of name tag for route description

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Markus-5



10 May 2019, 22:24 by [hidden email]:
On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 20:00, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

My natural inclination would be to put the name of the service, as displayed on the bus
itself, in the name tag. But maybe that's just me.

What kind of name are displayed on these buses? Around here, buses,
trains etc. usually only display the route number (or route type) and
their destination (e.g. "701 Le Prese Stazione", "201 Villeneuve", "IR
Chur" or "IC 3 Basel SBB"). Route names (e.g. "Bernina Express",
"MetropolitanLine" or "Marunouchi Line") seem to be quite rare.
In my city bus/tram routes have assigned number - either name is something like
"8", "172" or are unnamed with ref numbers.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12