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