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
|

Re: Misuse of name tag for route description

Markus-5
On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 19:35, Jo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> And I like to see all that prepended with the name of the operator...

That's easily feasible. operator=*, route=* (= means of
transportation), ref=*, name=*, from=*, via=*, to=* (and a possible
course=* tag for rush hour, evening, weekend etc. courses) could be
combined however you want. This has the advantage that it's more
flexible than a pre-formatted and thus static route description.

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

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 18:53, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:

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.

Sometimes, and not  just for bus routes, the name and the description are identical.

Not far from me is a house that is painted red.  Its name is Ty Coch (in less sloppy
orthography it would be Tŷ Coch, but it's lost the accent over time).  The name has long
been Ty Coch.  It's Welsh for "Red House."  There are a LOT of house names around here
that, if they weren't in Welsh, some mapper checking my work would think I'd entered the
description rather than the name.  I recently mapped an events venue in a converted
farm building that calls itself "The Shed" because it's in a large shed.  And mapped the
building used as a play area for a campsite as "The Barn" because that's what the operators
have named it, it just happens to be in what is a Dutch barn.  There are a lot of buildings
that used to be mills which have names like "White Mill," "Red Mill," "Garnon's Mill,"  Etc.

Be careful not to insist that something cannot be the name of a thing because it also
happens to be a description of that thing.  People are lazy and have limited imaginations:
sometimes the description is used as the name.

--
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

Philip Barnes
On Sat, 2019-05-11 at 19:09 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 18:53, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:

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.


Sometimes, and not  just for bus routes, the name and the description are identical.

Not far from me is a house that is painted red.  Its name is Ty Coch (in less sloppy
orthography it would be Tŷ Coch, but it's lost the accent over time).  The name has long
been Ty Coch.  It's Welsh for "Red House."  There are a LOT of house names around here
that, if they weren't in Welsh, some mapper checking my work would think I'd entered the
description rather than the name.  I recently mapped an events venue in a converted
farm building that calls itself "The Shed" because it's in a large shed.  And mapped the
building used as a play area for a campsite as "The Barn" because that's what the operators
have named it, it just happens to be in what is a Dutch barn.  There are a lot of buildings
that used to be mills which have names like "White Mill," "Red Mill," "Garnon's Mill,"  Etc.

Be careful not to insist that something cannot be the name of a thing because it also
happens to be a description of that thing.  People are lazy and have limited imaginations:
sometimes the description is used as the name.

Not necessarily lazy, but names come from before the time of mass literacy. 

Back in time you would have said you live at Tŷ Coch and someone who could not read would find your house.

The same with pub name, they are often descriptions of the picture, hence we still have names such as The White Lion, The Dog and Pheasant or Y Llew Coch.

Phil (trigpoint)

_______________________________________________
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
OK, so I tested and I renamed one of the many bus routes I'm maintaining, moved from name to description. And you know what: both JOSM and the web interface now show the ref instead of the description, so until that gets resolved there is not very much chance people will want to move from the name tag to the description tag.

As always, there is, of course, a reason why we 'abuse' the name tag for this purpose. Personally I also don't think it's abusing the tag.

For the people proposing t use what is on the 'film' on the front of the bus: there are itineraries where this text changes midway, so that's definitely not the name fo that specific itinerary either.

Jo

On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 8:54 PM Philip Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sat, 2019-05-11 at 19:09 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 18:53, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:

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.


Sometimes, and not  just for bus routes, the name and the description are identical.

Not far from me is a house that is painted red.  Its name is Ty Coch (in less sloppy
orthography it would be Tŷ Coch, but it's lost the accent over time).  The name has long
been Ty Coch.  It's Welsh for "Red House."  There are a LOT of house names around here
that, if they weren't in Welsh, some mapper checking my work would think I'd entered the
description rather than the name.  I recently mapped an events venue in a converted
farm building that calls itself "The Shed" because it's in a large shed.  And mapped the
building used as a play area for a campsite as "The Barn" because that's what the operators
have named it, it just happens to be in what is a Dutch barn.  There are a lot of buildings
that used to be mills which have names like "White Mill," "Red Mill," "Garnon's Mill,"  Etc.

Be careful not to insist that something cannot be the name of a thing because it also
happens to be a description of that thing.  People are lazy and have limited imaginations:
sometimes the description is used as the name.

Not necessarily lazy, but names come from before the time of mass literacy. 

Back in time you would have said you live at Tŷ Coch and someone who could not read would find your house.

The same with pub name, they are often descriptions of the picture, hence we still have names such as The White Lion, The Dog and Pheasant or Y Llew Coch.

Phil (trigpoint)
_______________________________________________
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

Paul Allen
On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 23:19, Jo <[hidden email]> wrote:

For the people proposing t use what is on the 'film' on the front of the bus: there are itineraries where this text changes midway, so that's definitely not the name fo that specific itinerary either.

A to B via C and D.

--
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

Johnparis
First of all, what Mateusz is proposing as the "name" of the route is properly referred to as the "headsign". And the notion that because Mateusz thinks the "description" tag is a better fit than the "name" tag is all well and good, and merits discussion, but it doesn't mean he's right (or wrong).

Bus routes are complicated enough to tag and render without overturning well-established practice for no reason. I have mapped hundreds of bus routes in two countries (and help maintain more than 1,300). This discussion should properly have begun on one of the specialized transit discussion lists, where people with experience can offer insight, rather than a general tagging discussion. Tagging a bus route is not the same as tagging a hiking route, nor a mountain range, nor a stand of trees.

For more information on the main standard in this area, see https://gtfs.org/best-practices/

Several different variants (each mapped as a separate route in PTv2) can share the same headsign. Moving the "name" tag (well established) to the "description" tag (vague and unused) serves no purpose, to my mind. Replacing it with the less specific (though useful) headsign seems counterproductive to me.

And the headsign is often NOT the "name" of the bus (in the sense of the name used for marketing purposes by the bus company). For example, "TUVIM" is the full name of a bus line near where I live. Not very helpful to have name=TUVIM for the tag. There are several different variants, each with a helpful (descriptive) name:
Bus TUVIM Épinettes : Horace Vernet - Mairie ↔ Mairie d'Issy-Métro
Bus TUVIM Centre-Ville : Horace Vernet - Mairie ↔ Mairie d'Issy-Métro
Bus TUVIM Île Saint-Germain : Horace Vernet - Mairie ↔ Mairie d'Issy-Métro

Note that the first two would have the same headsign, though they are different routes.

The larger question is, what is a "name" in OSM? The wiki says to use those "typically signposted". A bus has several signposts:
-- the headsign on the bus itself (which Mateusz apparently proposes as the name)
-- the signs inside the bus (which usually conform closely to the existing name)
-- the signs on the brochures inside the bus and available from the bus operator (also tracking the existing name)
-- the signs at various stops along the route (can be headsign or existing name or both)

There are also signs in the form of advertising used by the bus operator. All these may have different variations. The community has agreed in PTv2 to a standardized "name" out of these myriad possibilities.

All names are descriptions of one sort or another. Not all descriptions are names. I might describe Bus 26 near me as "the bus from Gambetta to Nation" or "the bus from Gambetta to Gare Saint-Lazare". But "Gambetta" isn't on the headsign! Why? Because Gambetta is my stop; in fact when I say "the bus from Gambetta" I am describing two variants on one route. That would be a possibly appropriate description. Not a name. Others might say "the 26" or "the orange line". Those are also names. There are many possible names for a bus line. The one that we have agreed on is a valid name. It can also, I suppose, be considered a description, though quite a rigid one, because as has already been noted, the description tag is more free-form.

I go by the rule "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." What is "broken" by the existing setup? And in particular, what is "broken" that adding a "headsign=*" tag wouldn't fix?

John











On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 12:36 AM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 23:19, Jo <[hidden email]> wrote:

For the people proposing t use what is on the 'film' on the front of the bus: there are itineraries where this text changes midway, so that's definitely not the name fo that specific itinerary either.

A to B via C and D.

--
Paul

_______________________________________________
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

Paul Allen
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 00:08, Johnparis <[hidden email]> wrote:

I go by the rule "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." What is "broken" by the existing setup? And in particular, what is "broken" that adding a "headsign=*" tag wouldn't fix?

The fact that, when I'm waiting for a bus at a stop which has several services, some of them
variants of the same route number, I want to know what to look for on the headsign.  I don't
want to know what the marketing dept calls that route, or what's on the brochures and timetables
inside the bus, I want to know what is on the headsign.  I may be in a hurry.  Too much of a hurry
to use the query tool to work my way through the several routes and variants on that stretch of road
so I can find the headsign tags.  I'd like it on the map.  I'll accept a superset, so if the headsign
says "Aberystwyth" and the timetable says "Cardigan to Aberystwyth via New Quay" I'd be happy
enough with the latter.  Route designation as well, of course, especially if that's on the headsign
(which it usually is).

All that is just my opinion.  Which may differ from best practises, worst practises and any other
practises known to man.  I have a wish, not shared by everyone on the list, that maps be useful.

Feel free to tell me what best practise says about https://www.ceredigion.gov.uk/media/3813/t5-x50-554.pdf
If I get on at Cardigan the headsign says "T5 Aberystwyth".

--
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
In reply to this post by Jo-2
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 00:19, Jo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> OK, so I tested and I renamed one of the many bus routes I'm maintaining, moved from name to description. And you know what: both JOSM and the web interface now show the ref instead of the description, so until that gets resolved there is not very much chance people will want to move from the name tag to the description tag.

I know, this is why i misued the name tag, too. I mentioned that in my
previous emails. [1][2]

[1]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-May/045180.html
[2]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-May/045186.html

I'll file enhancement requests to the editors as soon as we find a
consensus. Currently, it seems that for hiking routes, using the
description tag instead of the name tag for route descriptions is
undispued, but, oddly, for public transportation routes it is not.

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 Johnparis
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 01:08, Johnparis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> This discussion should properly have begun on one of the specialized transit discussion lists, where people with experience can offer insight, rather than a general tagging discussion. Tagging a bus route is not the same as tagging a hiking route, nor a mountain range, nor a stand of trees.

At least in Switzerland, where whe have countless of hiking routes [1]
(every yellow, red or blue line on the map belongs to a hiking route),
mapping them is very similar to mapping a bus route. There's the same
problem with multiple routes using the same road or path. [2] (I split
the routes at every possible intermediate locations, otherwise there
were a lot more route relations sharing the same way.)

[1]: https://map.geo.admin.ch/?lang=en&topic=ech&bgLayer=ch.swisstopo.pixelkarte-farbe&layers=ch.swisstopo.zeitreihen,ch.bfs.gebaeude_wohnungs_register,ch.bav.haltestellen-oev,ch.swisstopo.swisstlm3d-wanderwege&layers_visibility=false,false,false,true&layers_timestamp=18641231,,,
[2]: https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist?ids=8325230,8332578,8335238

> I go by the rule "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." What is "broken" by the existing setup?

It is broken, because it's not clear anymore what are real route names
(e.g. "Jubilee Line" or "Via Alpina") and what are descriptions.

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

Sarah Hoffmann
In reply to this post by Markus-5
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 09:26:02AM +0200, Markus wrote:

> On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 00:19, Jo <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > OK, so I tested and I renamed one of the many bus routes I'm maintaining, moved from name to description. And you know what: both JOSM and the web interface now show the ref instead of the description, so until that gets resolved there is not very much chance people will want to move from the name tag to the description tag.
>
> I know, this is why i misued the name tag, too. I mentioned that in my
> previous emails. [1][2]
>
> [1]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-May/045180.html
> [2]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-May/045186.html
>
> I'll file enhancement requests to the editors as soon as we find a
> consensus. Currently, it seems that for hiking routes, using the
> description tag instead of the name tag for route descriptions is
> undispued, but, oddly, for public transportation routes it is not.

In my experience, the course of the route is the most used descriptive
name fo nameless routes.

So, how about adding a new tag "itinerary"? This would contain a simple
"<from> - <via> - ... - <to>". Works for simple routes (no vias) and
longer ones (two or three vias). As a data consumer, the advantage
is that it would have a semi-fixed format that is easily parsable
(for example: not enough display space? Drop the vias.)

I believe that tag would work for PT routes as well, although it seems
they would need a "headsign" tag in addition.

NB: you can already change what tag is displayed as name for relations
in JOSM. Go to "Advanced settings" and search for the setting
"relation.nameOrder". There you can state a list of tags that JOSM
should try for the display name. I've recently added 'symbol' there and
now I can finally get rid of all the "Gelber Strich" hiking route names
in the area.

Sarah


_______________________________________________
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

TonyS
To me what is emerging is that there is no formal or official name for 
many of the things we are trying to map.

If OSM puts a name against a route it is the idea of the individual
mapper possibly in agreement with others. If a guidebook has a named
walking route which is a different name to that in a different guidebook
(but an identical route)- which is correct? Should OSM give it a 3rd name?

For the T5 bus, is that going to Aberteifi or Cardigan

TonyS999

On 12/05/2019 09:30, Sarah Hoffmann wrote:

> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 09:26:02AM +0200, Markus wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 00:19, Jo <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> OK, so I tested and I renamed one of the many bus routes I'm maintaining, moved from name to description. And you know what: both JOSM and the web interface now show the ref instead of the description, so until that gets resolved there is not very much chance people will want to move from the name tag to the description tag.
>> I know, this is why i misued the name tag, too. I mentioned that in my
>> previous emails. [1][2]
>>
>> [1]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-May/045180.html
>> [2]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-May/045186.html
>>
>> I'll file enhancement requests to the editors as soon as we find a
>> consensus. Currently, it seems that for hiking routes, using the
>> description tag instead of the name tag for route descriptions is
>> undispued, but, oddly, for public transportation routes it is not.
> In my experience, the course of the route is the most used descriptive
> name fo nameless routes.
>
> So, how about adding a new tag "itinerary"? This would contain a simple
> "<from> - <via> - ... - <to>". Works for simple routes (no vias) and
> longer ones (two or three vias). As a data consumer, the advantage
> is that it would have a semi-fixed format that is easily parsable
> (for example: not enough display space? Drop the vias.)
>
> I believe that tag would work for PT routes as well, although it seems
> they would need a "headsign" tag in addition.
>
> NB: you can already change what tag is displayed as name for relations
> in JOSM. Go to "Advanced settings" and search for the setting
> "relation.nameOrder". There you can state a list of tags that JOSM
> should try for the display name. I've recently added 'symbol' there and
> now I can finally get rid of all the "Gelber Strich" hiking route names
> in the area.
>
> Sarah
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Markus-5


sent from a phone

On 12. May 2019, at 09:26, Markus <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'll file enhancement requests to the editors as soon as we find a
consensus. Currently, it seems that for hiking routes, using the
description tag instead of the name tag for route descriptions is
undispued, but, oddly, for public transportation routes it is not.


If we were to use description in a formalized way (A to B, or A to B via C), where would we put actual free form descriptions ?


The description=* tag can be used to provide additional information about the related element to the end map user, possibly using a pop-up or similar. Text should be kept short; a few words or perhaps one to three sentences at most. Longer information can be provided by tagging a link to Wikipedia or other external website”


this doesn’t look as if it was the right tag for what we want to tag here 


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 TonyS
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 10:21, Tony Shield <[hidden email]> wrote:
To me what is emerging is that there is no formal or official name for 
many of the things we are trying to map.

And there are different interpretations of the rules.  For some, "rules is rules."   For
others, we see rules as a means to an end (making a useful map).  So there is one
camp that says "You can't do that, it's against the rules."  And another camp that
says "The rules are sub-optimal and need to be changed."

As I pointed out earlier, there are many names of objects I've mapped that look like
descriptions.  Because that's how they started out in the distant past.  It's only
in more recent times that people generally used arbitrary (and often whimsical)
labels for things like house names.

There is a good reason for not using a description for a name.  We'd end up with many
buildings named "Shed," "Barn," "Dog Kennel," "House," and even "Building."  Not useful:
it clutters the map and makes it hard to find objects that actually have names (like house
names).  But an overly-strict interpretation of the rules leads people to complain about
actual names that just happen to look like descriptions, or are even identical to
descriptions.

If OSM puts a name against a route it is the idea of the individual
mapper possibly in agreement with others. If a guidebook has a named
walking route which is a different name to that in a different guidebook
(but an identical route)- which is correct? Should OSM give it a 3rd name?

That's a problem.  You can use alt_name so that all the names show up in a search.  Some
mappers might name it "Womble Walk / Wimbledon Walk" or something like that.

For the T5 bus, is that going to Aberteifi or Cardigan

It's the same place.  Cardigan is the English name; Aberteifi is the Welsh name. The only
other one like that on that timetable is New Quay / Cei Newydd.  However, that timetable is
on the Ceredigion County Council website and covers only the portion of the route that is
in Ceredigion.  There are a lot more like that on the full timetable:

What's not clear on that other timetable is that it's not a through service all the way: to get
from Aberystwyth to Haverfordwest you get off the T5 at Cardigan (or Aberteifi if you're Welsh)
and get on another T5 to complete the journey.  There are really two T5s, one does
Cardigan-Aberystwyth-Cardigan and the other Cardigan-Haverford West-Cardigan.  Which
is another reason why route number alone is inadequate and it is vital to look at the
headsign on the bus.

--
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

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 11:10, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

If we were to use description in a formalized way (A to B, or A to B via C), where would we put actual free form descriptions ?

1) I'm suggesting we use A to B via C for the name where that is the actual name of the service.
Yes, it looks like a description.  The bus company is very unimaginative and lazy for not
coming up with a name completely unrelated to the route of the bus.  It's still the name.

2) Description is entirely optional.  If the name of the thing is also a description of that thing then
there is no need for a description.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread there's a house near me with the walls painted red and
its official name (as registered with the county council) is "Red House" (except it's in Welsh,
but that's what Ty Coch means).  Putting "Red house" in the description would be superfluous.
A few miles away is a working water mill called "The Mill"  (actually, "Y Felin," but that means
"The Mill").  A lot of names, particularly older names, are descriptions with a definite article, and
sometimes the definite article gets dropped - a red house is named "The Red House" and
eventually just "Red House."

It would be a bad idea to give the name "House" to a house if we cannot identify the name,
so the rule not to use descriptions as names makes sense in that particular case.  If the
house is named "Red House" or "Big House" or whatever then that IS its name even if it
looks like a description and the rule doesn't apply.

--
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

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 12. May 2019, at 14:03, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> a red house is named "The Red House" and
> eventually just "Red House."


speaking of names, there is also a fraction of mappers who would put name=‘Red’ because there is already building=house and they don’t put name parts that are describing the kind of thing ;-)

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
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 14:38, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 12. May 2019, at 14:03, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> a red house is named "The Red House" and
> eventually just "Red House."


speaking of names, there is also a fraction of mappers who would put name=‘Red’ because there is already building=house and they don’t put name parts that are describing the kind of thing ;-)

That's just silly.  The correct thing to do is omit the name completely and use building=red_house.

--
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
In reply to this post by Sarah Hoffmann
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 10:34, Sarah Hoffmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> So, how about adding a new tag "itinerary"? This would contain a simple
> "<from> - <via> - ... - <to>". Works for simple routes (no vias) and
> longer ones (two or three vias). As a data consumer, the advantage
> is that it would have a semi-fixed format that is easily parsable
> (for example: not enough display space? Drop the vias.)

Good idea!

> NB: you can already change what tag is displayed as name for relations
> in JOSM. Go to "Advanced settings" and search for the setting
> "relation.nameOrder". There you can state a list of tags that JOSM
> should try for the display name. I've recently added 'symbol' there and
> now I can finally get rid of all the "Gelber Strich" hiking route names
> in the area.

Great, thanks for the hint!

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 dieterdreist
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:10, Martin Koppenhoefer
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> “The description=* tag can be used to provide additional information about the related element to the end map user, possibly using a pop-up or similar. Text should be kept short; a few words or perhaps one to three sentences at most. Longer information can be provided by tagging a link to Wikipedia or other external website”
>
> this doesn’t look as if it was the right tag for what we want to tag here

You are right, description=* isn't optimal either. Sarah's suggestion
of a new itinary=* tag seems like a better solution.

Regards

Markus

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