Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 10:20 PM stevea  wrote:

> I have mapped perhaps tens of thousands of miles of bike routes in OSM.
> Yes, really.  I don't do this sort of "apply the name of the route to the
> element track/path."  We shouldn't.
>
> Zeke's example is excellent and is a good reason for "route element
> naming" to be "case by case" rather than there be a "one-size-fits-all"
> approach, which simply cannot work for all cases.  There are other examples
> (let's stick with bicycle routes) where it won't be a residential street,
> but a path which is specifically unnamed, but IS part of a route relation
> (which DOES have a name), as well as (almost?) every combination that can
> be thought of.  If the path is unnamed, LEAVE it unnamed, even if it is
> part of one or more route relations.  Indeed if it is part of one route
> relation, you might think you should name it, though, you shouldn't.  If it
> is part of MORE than one route relation, you might think there is ambiguity
> and shouldn't name it, but Zeke presents us with an example where "the
> dominant" (I paraphrase what I think he means) route name DOES (happen to)
> influence the naming of the element way, but that is very much a "local
> rules apply" situation.  In fact, I am of the strong opinion that ONLY
> "local rules apply" and OSM must strive to "name" things (like this, in
> relations) on a case-by-case basis.  Because one-size-fits-all doesn't work
> in our real, messy world.
>

There are certainly cases where the route and the path are named alike.  I
understand hiking trails better than I do bicycle routes, but for example
the Northville-Placid Trail https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4286650
has many member ways that are signed with its name. (It has a
characteristic marker, seen in
https://cdn.securem2.com//commonimages/pages/2022/4/ntptrailsign.jpg).  Its
off-road segments are named with the route name because that's how they're
signed.

For the relatively short stretches like
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20092775 where the trail follows a road,
the segments are of course tagged with the name of the road rather than the
name of the trail. (The markers continue, on utility poles, signposts,
guard rails or nearby trees, but the road signage is much more prominent,
and the road name is associated with street addresses.)

 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/426361535 is named Devil's Path. It
happens to be that Long Path follows it (and is a much more important
trail) but Devi'ls Path was there first (and retains its red blaze rather
than Long Path aqua because it's the senior trail).
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1005078526, by contrast, was
purpose-built as part of Long Path, and is signed with that name and marked
with the Long Path's blaze. The locals call it by that name, and that's the
name it has in OSM.

I do the same thing with road routes when the road has no other name AND
has street addresses on it.  If houses on a route have addresses like "5749
Route 28" and blade signs at the intersections say "Route 28", then "Route
28" is the name of the road.  That;s pretty common in some counties around
here. In fact, I consider the use of the route number in the street
addresses to be quite strong evidence that the name of the route is the
name on the ground. It's especially important to carry the name through
concurrences. The buildings along https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/44965854
had addresses like '41158 State Highway 28' - NY 30 runs concurrently but
does NOT lend its name to the road.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/236739253 gives the name 'State Highway
30' to its street addresses, and NY 206 does not. Leaving these segments
nameless would give navigation software no guidance on what to call them.

If there's no name other than the route number, there are no street
addresses, and there's no signage other than the route markers, the way is
nameless.  That's most motorways and some rural highways.


Steve is right that the world is messy.  Around me, a simple rule that "a
way that is named the same as its route is actually nameless" is a bad
rule, and "a way is always named the same as its route" is just plain
wrong.  There's little harm done by the occasional redundant name. I
suspect a general rule like what Warin proposes might work well in a tidier
country than the US. Unlike some places, our places and names have grown
organically and chaotically. We don't have everything all neatly catalogued
back to the year 1086.

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

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

[Volker Schmidt]

Thinking about why people may be doing this, and based on recent experience:
You come across a bicycle or hiking route sign "on the ground", but have no
idea what relation it is referring to. So you tag it as name, just for the
time being.

Il giorno sab 31 dic 2022 alle ore 18:50 Anne- Karoline Distel <
annekadis...@web.de> ha scritto:

> +1
>
> Anne
>
> --
> Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> On 30/12/2022, 20:59 Peter Neale via Tagging 
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> PeterPan99
>>
>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>> 
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 at 20:02, Dave F via Tagging
>>  wrote:
>> On 29/12/2022 09:47, Warin wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I think the 'names' should be removed from these 'unnamed' things
>> > ..the 'name' is the name of the route not the individual tracks/paths
>> > some of which existed before some routes were created.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> DaveF
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>> ___ Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging