Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 10:34, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > > So, how about adding a new tag "itinerary"? This would contain a simple > " - - ... - ". 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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:10, Martin Koppenhoefer 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 >

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 14:38, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 12. May 2019, at 14:03, Paul Allen 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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

sent from a phone > On 12. May 2019, at 14:03, Paul Allen 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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 11:10, Martin Koppenhoefer 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,

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 10:21, Tony Shield 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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

sent from a phone > On 12. May 2019, at 09:26, Markus 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,

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 09:26:02AM +0200, Markus wrote: > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 00:19, Jo 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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 01:08, Johnparis 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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 00:19, Jo 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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 00:08, Johnparis 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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

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).

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 23:19, Jo 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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Sat, 2019-05-11 at 19:09 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 18:53, Mateusz Konieczny < > matkoni...@tutanota.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The question is whatever it requires separate proposal to fix old > > proposal or is invoking > > general rule "name tag is for

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 18:53, Mateusz Konieczny 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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 19:35, Jo 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)

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

10 May 2019, 22:24 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com: > On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 20:00, Paul Allen <> pla16...@gmail.com > > > 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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

11 May 2019, 19:47 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com: > On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 17:05, Johnparis <> ok...@johnfreed.com > > > wrote: > >> >> For bus routes, at least, there is an established convention for the name >> tag. I have mapped hundreds of such routes. It is

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 17:05, Johnparis 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.

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

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 wrote: > On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 18:16, Markus wrote: > > > > On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 13:50, Hufkratzer wrote: > > > > > > It would probably better to use description=* than

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 23:09, Paul Allen 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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 18:16, Markus wrote: > > On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 13:50, Hufkratzer 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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

sent from a phone > On 10. May 2019, at 23:07, Paul Allen 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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On 11/05/19 07:07, Paul Allen wrote: On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 21:26, Markus > 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.

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 21:26, Markus 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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

sent from a phone > On 10. May 2019, at 18:16, Markus 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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 20:00, Paul Allen 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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 18:40, Mateusz Konieczny 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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

10 May 2019, 18:16 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com: > 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 > > Is

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 13:50, Hufkratzer 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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

Hi Kevin, On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 17:35, Kevin Kenny 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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:11 AM Markus 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

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

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 Tagging@openstreetmap.org

[Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

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=history I agree that the