Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

[Peter Elderson]

Is a proposal coming up?

I map and maintain a lot of recreational foot/hiking route relations.Refs
and names of foot routes are never on ways, always on the relations.

I agree that the use of name=* and ref=* does not conform to wiki
documentation, but it's widespread, worldwide.People feel the need to
record this information, and use name, ref, note, comment and description.

If there were a better way AND if I could be sure established renderers and
datausers would handle it AND if the mapper community in Nederland agreed,
I would not hesitate to implement it in the routes I maintain.


Best, Peter Elderson

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

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 10:42, Sarah Hoffmann  wrote:

> * section_name (section? stage? leg?)
>

Segment?  Just a thought.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 00:55, Greg Troxel  wrote:

> Paul Allen  writes:
>
> > I can think of one US city square which has "square" in the name
> > (not square shaped, though) that is rather well-known.  If you
> > can't think of it the ball will drop eventually, at midnight on Dec 31st.
>
> But is that a place=square?  That is simply an intersection which is
> called square.  There is no hard-surfaced area for people separate frrom
> the roads.
>

The only pictures of it I've ever seen were all full of people standing
around.  I'll take your word for it.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

[Andrew Hain]

This tagging habit arose because the ref isn’t displayed in the side panel, 
only the name. Fix that and we can do a big clean-up.

--
Andrew


From: Sarah Hoffmann 
Sent: 29 March 2020 10:41
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

Hi,

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 06:18:01PM +, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Route relation names aren’t in a great state, are they?
>
> The upshot: bad luck if you want to render the actual names of routes on a 
> map. You can’t.

Or want to search for them. The sad state of the name tag is the
only reason why you still can't search for hiking/cycling
routes on osm.org[1].

[1] https://github.com/osm-search/Nominatim/issues/413

> A modest proposal: let’s use the name= tag in route relations for route 
> names. Let’s use the ref= tag for route numbers. If it doesn’t have a name, 
> it shouldn’t have a name= tag. Same as we do everywhere else.
>
> If you need somewhere for a mapper-facing route description (and I can see 
> that you need that for “part United Kingdom 5”), then I guess the obvious 
> place to put that is the note= tag. But let’s keep it out of the name tag; 
> and let’s have a concerted effort to remove them from existing name tags.

Problem is that a large part of routes is mistagged this way.
The public transport people even officially recommend this crappy
tagging for the name tag[2]. So I suspect that this particular ship
has sailed a long time ago.

[2] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Public_Transport=625726#Route

These days I wonder if it wouldn't be better if we introduce a tag
that explicitly contains the name only. How about official_name for a,
well, official name of the route and local_name for one that is used
by everybody else.

On top of that, it would be good to encourage more use of tags for all the
other info that nowadays ends up in the name tag. Most of the are actually
defined somewhere already:

* ref
* symbol
* operator
* region [3]
* itinary (or, as PT people prefer: from, to, via)
* section_name (section? stage? leg?)
* section_ref

[3] Basically the entity that 'ref'refers to. Sometimes that is a touristic
area, sometimes the operator. I'd rather call it 'network' but that tag
is already used for something else.

If this kind of extended tagging gets widely enough used, then the
name tag can just fall into oblivion.

Sarah

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

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

[Sarah Hoffmann]

Hi,

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 06:18:01PM +, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Route relation names aren’t in a great state, are they?
>
> The upshot: bad luck if you want to render the actual names of routes on a 
> map. You can’t.

Or want to search for them. The sad state of the name tag is the
only reason why you still can't search for hiking/cycling
routes on osm.org[1].

[1] https://github.com/osm-search/Nominatim/issues/413

> A modest proposal: let’s use the name= tag in route relations for route 
> names. Let’s use the ref= tag for route numbers. If it doesn’t have a name, 
> it shouldn’t have a name= tag. Same as we do everywhere else.
> 
> If you need somewhere for a mapper-facing route description (and I can see 
> that you need that for “part United Kingdom 5”), then I guess the obvious 
> place to put that is the note= tag. But let’s keep it out of the name tag; 
> and let’s have a concerted effort to remove them from existing name tags.

Problem is that a large part of routes is mistagged this way.
The public transport people even officially recommend this crappy
tagging for the name tag[2]. So I suspect that this particular ship
has sailed a long time ago.

[2] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Public_Transport=625726#Route

These days I wonder if it wouldn't be better if we introduce a tag
that explicitly contains the name only. How about official_name for a,
well, official name of the route and local_name for one that is used
by everybody else.

On top of that, it would be good to encourage more use of tags for all the
other info that nowadays ends up in the name tag. Most of the are actually
defined somewhere already:

* ref
* symbol
* operator
* region [3]
* itinary (or, as PT people prefer: from, to, via)
* section_name (section? stage? leg?)
* section_ref

[3] Basically the entity that 'ref'refers to. Sometimes that is a touristic
area, sometimes the operator. I'd rather call it 'network' but that tag
is already used for something else.

If this kind of extended tagging gets widely enough used, then the
name tag can just fall into oblivion.

Sarah

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

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Greg Troxel]

Joseph Eisenberg  writes:

> "taking "Harvard Square" as an example,
> that refers to an area around the road junctions.  It includes the
> sidewalks, and it includes the businesses and buildings that are on the
> roads that border the center, and even includes things that are perhaps
> 50-100m down side roads, as long as they are sort of part of the same
> logical larger place."
>
> In that case use a place=neighbourhood node, since this is a named
> part of a larger settlement, aka "a neighbo(u)rhood"

That sounds right to me.

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

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Greg Troxel]

Paul Allen  writes:

> On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 00:55, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>
>> Paul Allen  writes:
>>
>> > I can think of one US city square which has "square" in the name
>> > (not square shaped, though) that is rather well-known.  If you
>> > can't think of it the ball will drop eventually, at midnight on Dec 31st.
>>
>> But is that a place=square?  That is simply an intersection which is
>> called square.  There is no hard-surfaced area for people separate frrom
>> the roads.
>
> The only pictures of it I've ever seen were all full of people standing
> around.  I'll take your word for it.

Probably that's during new year's eve when all the roads are shut down
and there are people in many more places than usual.

I did find a bit of a pedestrian area that fits the Euro definition of
square, on looking further.

But that area is not what is meant by "Foo Square" in the US.  Such
names refer to an indistinct area around the named intersection.
Joseph Eisenberg summed it up well in the Harvard Square case, and I
think the same applies here.

In OSM, there is a way in Times Square with place=square.  However, it
includes roads and bits of sidewalk in some places, so that is not
matching what has been discussed.  Really it is a place=neighborhood
with an indistinct boundary, even if there is a bit of eurosquare there.

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

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 29. Mar 2020, at 17:23, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> 
> Really it is a place=neighborhood
> with an indistinct boundary, even if there is a bit of eurosquare there.


the fact there is a neighborhood which takes its name from a square does not 
imply there cannot also be a square at the same time, likely with different 
boundaries.

Although it could explain why people tag place=square to neighborhoods


Cheers Martin 


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

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Greg Troxel]

Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:

> sent from a phone
>
>> On 29. Mar 2020, at 17:23, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>> 
>> Really it is a place=neighborhood
>> with an indistinct boundary, even if there is a bit of eurosquare there.
>
> the fact there is a neighborhood which takes its name from a square
> does not imply there cannot also be a square at the same time, likely
> with different boundaries.

Yes, but since the name refers to a (small) neighborhood, assigning that
same name to the hard-surfaced gathering place is wrong and making
things up to fit euro notions which do not apply.  Really, it seems like
you are trying to shoehorn european definitions into US naming when it
is just not the way it is.

> Although it could explain why people tag place=square to neighborhoods

I think people tag place=square because they have not been through this
discussion and they assume that place=square is a locality-type tag that
refers to an indistinct named region that is an intersection and the
things near it.  That's what speakers of en_US would assume, not having
read a detailed definition that says otherwise.

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

[Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

[Volker Schmidt]

Resending the message, as it bounced - my apologies if you see it twice

Volker

-- Forwarded message -
From: Volker Schmidt 
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 14:28
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 


Don't think the official name will help. Talking from my limited experience
with cycle routes in Italy:  most do not have e Reference and many do not
have an agreed-upon official name. But they exist on the ground with some
kind of sign posting, often varying along the same route over space and
depending on when they were installed. And the official names are often
hilarious, and long. Try this: https://suisentieridegliezzelini.it/
Have a look at the signs in the first image. And then use Sarah's trick to
create a "ref" from the first characters: "SSDELIMEIL". Note that you need
the whole text as identification. The first line is the name of a group of
walking and hiking routes, the second line is the name of the specific
route.
The problem is not on the OSM mapping side, it is the completely
unstructured approach by the various administrations to something which
should be cycling network.  I have given up hope and limit myself to
documenting what is on the ground. If there is no ref I don't put a ref
tag. If there is an official name I put it, even it is an entire sermon.

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020, 13:33 Paul Allen,  wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 10:42, Sarah Hoffmann  wrote:
>
>> * section_name (section? stage? leg?)
>>
>
> Segment?  Just a thought.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

>> On 29. Mar 2020, at 18:24, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> Really, it seems like
> you are trying to shoehorn european definitions into US naming when it
> is just not the way it is.


Frankly, I am not really familiar with the situation in North America (besides 
some lessons about North American urbanism I have heard 20 years ago). I am 
aware there are some developments that imitate 19th century architecture, so 
even if many or most of the traditional city centers have been razed in the 
sixties, I would still expect to find at least some squares in north america.

If you have a look at the wikipedia article on Times Square, it also mentions 
its nature as a town square: “ Times Square functions as a town square”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Square
It is also a model example in that it lies at the junction of import streets 
and is emphasized by the adjacent architecture.

The existence of squares is not a recent or European invention, for example 
you’ll find squares in arabic or Chinese cities as well (you’ll indeed find 
them almost everywhere), here’s a list of some famous squares worldwide: 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_city_squares

Supposedly we would not want to have different specific top level place tags 
for neighbourhoods, depending on name components, so using place=square for 
neighborhoods seems not a sensible interpretation of the tag, I guess we can 
agree on this?

Cheers Martin 




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

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

[Peter Elderson]

I think the trick is to come up with a solution that does not change
anything for the current users (backward compatible), but provides a
functional or visible benefit if applied. I would not hesitate to apply
such a solution to all the foot/hiking routes I oversee.

By the way, WMT finds a lot of routes by name, even though the names
contain hyphens, comma's, colons and round brackets.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op zo 29 mrt. 2020 om 22:29 schreef Richard Fairhurst :

> Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
> > These days I wonder if it wouldn't be better if we introduce a
> > tag that explicitly contains the name only. How about
> > official_name for a, well, official name of the route and
> > local_name for one that is used by everybody else.
>
> Interesting thought. That really isn't a terrible idea. Well, ok, it _is_ a
> terrible idea in that one really shouldn't have to explain that the name
> tag
> is for the name and the ref tags is for the number, but we are where we
> are;
> and changing current usage appears likely to encounter resistance from the
> usual tedious sludgifiers.
>
> I'm slightly nervous of officlal_name because it's prone to sludgifiers
> (previous message refers). I wonder whether route_name= might work best if
> a
> reasonable definition were formulated? Something like "The popularly
> accepted name (and name only) for the whole route, excluding route number
> and geographical/similar qualifiers", illustrated with a set of examples.
> Yes, the key's a bit tautologous, but we have thousands of route=bicycle
> with route=?cn where the "c" stands for "cycle", so that's already a lost
> cause...
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Volker Schmidt]

>From these 2 examples how squares (I keep using this word although I am not
> sure it actually applies) are classified (often in names), which is the
> approach you had thought about?
>

I thought maybe the bast way to go ahead is to reverse our sequence:

1) collect a good number of examples of potential squares in different
countries (could be done in the discussion page of the Wiki's "square"
page) and for each one let's have:

   - location (item in OSM or at least coordinates)
   - reference (e.g. Wikipedia)
   - type of square in in the local language (possibly with an explanation
   in English what that type means)
   - name (and translation to English if the name can be translated)
   - foto
   - description
   - any annotation you feel useful

2) once completed we look at the collection and try to see whether we need
a) a new tag in addition to place=square
or
b) we can tag all examples with place=square and the addition of
*existing *specifyeing
keys
or
c) we can tag all examples with place=square but with the addition of new
square type keys

Note that this collection will be useful in any case for illustrating the
wiki, independently of the approach.

*Here is an example:*

- location (item in OSM or at least coordinates):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6029646
reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwigskirche#Ludwigsplatz
- type of square in in the local language (possibly with an explanation in
English what that type means):
Stadtplatz (historisch), (historical) town square
- name (and translation to English if the name can be translated)
Ludwigsplatz - Ludwig's square (named after the protestant church on the
square, which in turn is named after Ludwig, count of Nassau-Sarbruecken
)
images:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Saarbr%C3%BCcken%2C_die_H%C3%A4user_Am_Ludwigsplatz_14-14a.jpg
https://www.saarland.de/bilder/res_stk/Panorama_SB-Ludwigsplatz_rdax_800x200.jpg4
- description
originally designed as the centre of the town in the 18 century, today used
partially for a periodic open-air market, partially as pedestrian area,
some large trees, the residential streets on three sides and the baroque
palaces are part of the architectonic ensemble
- any annotation you feel useful
at present not tagged as place=square, but I would tag it as such

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

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Kevin Kenny]

Oh, just another random observation: extending the notion of 'square' to
the buildings that front upon it is not limited to New England. Moreover,
cursed Albion also has 'town squares' that are green space.

One example: Berkeley Square in London.  In form, it's a public garden, but
even the English designate it a town square. As I understand it, an
Englishman would not raise eyebrows at a sentence: "Winston Churchill, as a
child, lived in Berkeley Square.  The Churchills' house, № 48, is the one
entirely residential building remaining there; the rest of the buildings
are all offices of financial concerns, much like the rest of Mayfair." The
only thing there that would sound odd to American ears is that the English
speak of living 'in' a street, while the Americans speak of living 'on' a
street.


On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:17 PM Volker Schmidt  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> From these 2 examples how squares (I keep using this word although I am
>> not sure it actually applies) are classified (often in names), which is the
>> approach you had thought about?
>>
>
> I thought maybe the bast way to go ahead is to reverse our sequence:
>
> 1) collect a good number of examples of potential squares in different
> countries (could be done in the discussion page of the Wiki's "square"
> page) and for each one let's have:
>
>- location (item in OSM or at least coordinates)
>- reference (e.g. Wikipedia)
>- type of square in in the local language (possibly with an
>explanation in English what that type means)
>- name (and translation to English if the name can be translated)
>- foto
>- description
>- any annotation you feel useful
>
> 2) once completed we look at the collection and try to see whether we need
> a) a new tag in addition to place=square
> or
> b) we can tag all examples with place=square and the addition of *existing
> *specifyeing keys
> or
> c) we can tag all examples with place=square but with the addition of new
> square type keys
>
> Note that this collection will be useful in any case for illustrating the
> wiki, independently of the approach.
>
> *Here is an example:*
>
>
>- location (item in OSM or at least coordinates):
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6029646
> reference:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwigskirche#Ludwigsplatz
>
>- type of square in in the local language (possibly with an
>explanation in English what that type means):
>
> Stadtplatz (historisch), (historical) town square
>
>- name (and translation to English if the name can be translated)
>
> Ludwigsplatz - Ludwig's square (named after the protestant church on the
> square, which in turn is named after Ludwig, count of Nassau-Sarbruecken
> )
> images:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Saarbr%C3%BCcken%2C_die_H%C3%A4user_Am_Ludwigsplatz_14-14a.jpg
>
> https://www.saarland.de/bilder/res_stk/Panorama_SB-Ludwigsplatz_rdax_800x200.jpg4
>
>- description
>
> originally designed as the centre of the town in the 18 century, today
> used partially for a periodic open-air market, partially as pedestrian
> area, some large trees, the residential streets on three sides and the
> baroque palaces are part of the architectonic ensemble
>
>- any annotation you feel useful
>
> at present not tagged as place=square, but I would tag it as such
>
> Volker
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 30. Mar 2020, at 00:08, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> 
>> Let's not try to bend over backward to make sure that only European
>> squares qualify


PS: for me all of your examples are squares and should get the place=square tag
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 29. Mar 2020, at 22:16, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> Let's not try to bend over backward to make sure that only European
> squares qualify!


Absolutely, IMHO we should have a very generic and inclusive definition for 
town squares, applicable worldwide (basically what people consider a town 
square can get place=square), it was like this for some time (because no real 
definition was given, wiki said use place=square for squares).
Then people tried to improve this, but their amended definitions were more 
restrictive so that only part of the squares were covered. And it was 
discovered that some mappers would like to use this tag for areas around town 
squares, rather than for just the square.
There is a huge variety of squares, they come in all sizes, with different 
importance, different functions,...
The common denominator is they are open spaces, in built up areas, and 
typically connected to or part of the street system and situated at 
“strategical” locations.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 21:16, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> So is the key difference between a town square and a village green(*)
> the fact that the square is usually paved?
>

I think it would be rare for a grassed area to be called a town square.  And
very rare for a paved area to be called a village green.  In the end,
though,
it's down to how the locals think of it and what they use it for: not all
paved, pedestrian areas are town squares.  Some are market places.
Some are wide roads that have been pedestrianized and function more
as very wide footpaths.

For instance, is
>
> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/46/ac/ae/46acaefc5e243415deb7badb29b4113b.jpg
> a square ? What about
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Square,_Manhattan#/media/File:1_new_york_city_union_square_2010.JPG
> ?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Circle#/media/File:ColumbusCirclefromTimeWarnerCenterNYC20050807.jpg
> ?
>

They all look like they could be town squares.  Whether or not they're used
that way is another matter.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

[Dave F via Tagging]

A general point to all:
Please don't confuse a way's name with a route's name. They are 
different. There can be multiple routes traversing over the same way.



On 28/03/2020 21:56, Richard Fairhurst wrote:


Sure. NCN 4 is called "NCN 4" in the same sense that the M4 is called the
"M4". That's fine - plenty of people refer to it that way. But OSM
convention, dating back 15ish years, is that in situations like this, you
put the number in the ref alone. The M4 just has ref=M4, not name=M4.


However the authority responsible for naming conventions of entities, 
such roads or routes (ie Highways England/Sustrans/Whoever), wishes to 
name them, then that is how they should be tagged in OSM. Even if it  
includes what OSM perceives as a reference. OSM contributors don't have 
the authority to usurp that. The 'OSM convention' you mention is 
irrelevant - we map 'ground truth'.


If  HE wanted to name a section of the M4 'The bit of the M4 between 
junctions 14 & 15' then that's what it would be.


There's a similar situation in Britain where some think creating an OSM 
specific referencing system for public rights of way is the best 
situation. However inventing, what is in effect a unique language, makes 
it very difficult to communicate efficiently about the paths.



There are of course plenty of NCN routes which do have names. NCN 8 is Lon
Las Cymru. NCN 68 is the Pennine Cycleway. NCN 4 west of the Severn Bridge
is the Celtic Trail. NCN 1 from Newcastle to Edinburgh is Coast & Castles.


The Celtic Trail isn't the name of NCN 4. it's another route which 
happens to coincide (mostly) with a couple of NCN routes. From Sustran's 
blurb "The Celtic Trail is made up of two routes - NCN 4 & NCN 47".


The rest are similar, I believe.



(It's a side-issue, but Sustrans doesn't really have a consistent way of
referring to route numbers: you'll hear Sustrans staff refer to "Route 5" or
"NCN 5" or "National Cycle Network Route 5" or "National Route 5". I was at
a video conference with Sustrans staff earlier this week and heard several
variations. :) ).


Go with publications not chitter chatter over the phone.

DaveF

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

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Greg Troxel]

Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:

> Frankly, I am not really familiar with the situation in North America
> (besides some lessons about North American urbanism I have heard 20
> years ago). I am aware there are some developments that imitate 19th
> century architecture, so even if many or most of the traditional city
> centers have been razed in the sixties, I would still expect to find
> at least some squares in north america.

There are lots of things that are like many other things, as many came
from various places.

> If you have a look at the wikipedia article on Times Square, it also
> mentions its nature as a town square: “ Times Square functions as a
> town square”

Yes, but that says "functions as", not "meets the picky definition of
the osm tag place=square".  And if written by Americans, those words are
colored by their understanding of meaning.

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Square
> It is also a model example in that it lies at the junction of import streets 
> and is emphasized by the adjacent architecture.

I never had the impression adjacent architecture mattered.

> The existence of squares is not a recent or European invention, for
> example you’ll find squares in arabic or Chinese cities as well
> (you’ll indeed find them almost everywhere), here’s a list of some
> famous squares worldwide:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_city_squares

What I meant is that there are many places with square in the name that
aren't, and I think we're leading to mistagging due to different
understandings of words.  I know the OSM tagging system says that tokens
in tag mean what they are defined, not what they seem to say, but
interpreting the tokens as words with national meaning is too easy.

> Supposedly we would not want to have different specific top level
> place tags for neighbourhoods, depending on name components, so using
> place=square for neighborhoods seems not a sensible interpretation of
> the tag, I guess we can agree on this?

Yes.  Except that "neighborhood" is probably even not quite right.   In
New England usage the indistinct extent of "Foo Square" is much smaller
than what one might call a neighhborhood.

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

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

[Warin]

On 29/3/20 5:18 am, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Hello folks,

Route relation names aren’t in a great state, are they?

Let’s say that I want to render cycle route names on a map (because, 
well, I do). I zoom in on a way along the East Coast of Britain and I 
find it’s a member of this route:

 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9579
 name=NCN National Route 1



I'm looking at a cycle route now.

It has 2 different routes depending on the direction of travel, in this 
case north bound or south bound. It uses divided highways with cycle 
lanes so they need to be different there. Then they need to be different 
getting on and off these divided highways. The they need to be different 
when approaching roundabouts with bifurcated approaches...



Using 2 different routes for the different directions is fine.. but how 
is the direction indicated? In the 'name', the ref, the description? And 
would do the renders cope with that?




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

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Kevin Kenny]

So is the key difference between a town square and a village green(*)
the fact that the square is usually paved?

(*) No, I don't abuse 'village green' for 'any green space in a
village'. A lot of the older villages in the eastern US are laid out
roughly on the plan of English villages,  with a green in the center.
The green will typically be surrounded by such buildings as the
school, a church, a post office, a government center, an inn, perhaps
a few shops or private residences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwich,_Vermont#/media/File:Norwich-VT-Winter-Panorama.jpg
is typical.


By the way, New York City has many squares; among others, the
architects of the grid system planned one for each point where
Broadway crosses an avenue. Verdi Square/Sherman Square, Lincoln
Center, Dante Park, Columbus Circle, Times Square, Herald Square,
Madison Square, Union Square, Washington Square, Sheridan Square,
Tompkins Square, Astor Place/Cooper Square, City Hall Park, Zuccotti
Park, and Bowling Green all come to mind. Some of these are better
modeled as very small `leisure=park`, but most have the property of
being public open spaces where major urban roads converge, that
function as urban gathering places. For instance, is
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/46/ac/ae/46acaefc5e243415deb7badb29b4113b.jpg
a square ? What about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Square,_Manhattan#/media/File:1_new_york_city_union_square_2010.JPG
?  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Circle#/media/File:ColumbusCirclefromTimeWarnerCenterNYC20050807.jpg
?

Let's not try to bend over backward to make sure that only European
squares qualify!

On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 3:10 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 29. Mar 2020, at 18:24, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>
> Really, it seems like
> you are trying to shoehorn european definitions into US naming when it
> is just not the way it is.
>
>
>
> Frankly, I am not really familiar with the situation in North America 
> (besides some lessons about North American urbanism I have heard 20 years 
> ago). I am aware there are some developments that imitate 19th century 
> architecture, so even if many or most of the traditional city centers have 
> been razed in the sixties, I would still expect to find at least some squares 
> in north america.
>
> If you have a look at the wikipedia article on Times Square, it also mentions 
> its nature as a town square: “ Times Square functions as a town square”
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Square
> It is also a model example in that it lies at the junction of import streets 
> and is emphasized by the adjacent architecture.
>
> The existence of squares is not a recent or European invention, for example 
> you’ll find squares in arabic or Chinese cities as well (you’ll indeed find 
> them almost everywhere), here’s a list of some famous squares worldwide: 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_city_squares
>
> Supposedly we would not want to have different specific top level place tags 
> for neighbourhoods, depending on name components, so using place=square for 
> neighborhoods seems not a sensible interpretation of the tag, I guess we can 
> agree on this?
>
> Cheers Martin
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

[Volker Schmidt]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 00:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm looking at a cycle route now.
>

Could we have the relation number please?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

[Warin]

On 30/3/20 9:18 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:



On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 00:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


I'm looking at a cycle route now.


Could we have the relation number please?



Unorganized relation 2073457


One that is already directionally organized;

east bound 1113500

west bound 5458313


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

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

[Richard Fairhurst]

Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
> These days I wonder if it wouldn't be better if we introduce a 
> tag that explicitly contains the name only. How about 
> official_name for a, well, official name of the route and 
> local_name for one that is used by everybody else.

Interesting thought. That really isn't a terrible idea. Well, ok, it _is_ a
terrible idea in that one really shouldn't have to explain that the name tag
is for the name and the ref tags is for the number, but we are where we are;
and changing current usage appears likely to encounter resistance from the
usual tedious sludgifiers.

I'm slightly nervous of officlal_name because it's prone to sludgifiers
(previous message refers). I wonder whether route_name= might work best if a
reasonable definition were formulated? Something like "The popularly
accepted name (and name only) for the whole route, excluding route number
and geographical/similar qualifiers", illustrated with a set of examples.
Yes, the key's a bit tautologous, but we have thousands of route=bicycle
with route=?cn where the "c" stands for "cycle", so that's already a lost
cause...

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

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

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

[Yves]

Sorry, this was sent to Volker only.

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 10:42, Sarah Hoffmann  wrote:

I suspect that this particular ship has sailed a long time ago. [2] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Public_Transport=625726#Route

I always wondered what was this fuss about PT schema V1, 2, 3. Now I understand 
better ! So much time adding data barely useful or any processing - sigh.

I do understand Richard's concern and Sarah's despair, but I'm not sure adding 
a new 'name:and_name_only=*' tag is my prefered way to go.

We should be able to follow Richard's proposal and re-tag names in name=* and 
references in ref=* and filling itinerary, operator, etc... along the way.

Yves


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

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

[Volker Schmidt]

Don't think the official name will help. Talking from my limited experience
with cycle routes in Italy:  most do not have e Reference and many do not
have an agreed-upon official name. But they exist on the ground with some
kind of sign posting, often varying along the same route over space and
depending on when they were installed. And the official names are often
hilarious, and long. Try this: https://suisentieridegliezzelini.it/
Have a look at the signs in the first image. And then use Sarah's trick to
create a "ref" from the first characters: "SSDELIMEIL". Note that you need
the whole text as identification. The first line is the name of a group of
walking and hiking routes, the second line is the name of the specific
route.
The problem is not on the OSM mapping side, it is the completely
unstructured approach by the various administrations to something which
should be cycling network.  I have given up hope and limit myself to
documenting what is on the ground. If there is no ref I don't put a ref
tag. If there is an official name I put it, even it is an entire sermon.

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020, 13:33 Paul Allen,  wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 10:42, Sarah Hoffmann  wrote:
>
>> * section_name (section? stage? leg?)
>>
>
> Segment?  Just a thought.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging