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

[Markus]

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 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

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

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

[Paul Allen]

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 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 that are 
describing the kind of thing ;-)

Cheers, Martin 


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

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

[Paul Allen]

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, 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

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 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:
https://www.richardsbros.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/T5-October-2018.pdf

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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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, 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 ?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:description

“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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Tony Shield]

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  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
" -  - ... - ". 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

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

[Sarah Hoffmann]

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 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
" -  - ... - ". 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

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 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=ech=ch.swisstopo.pixelkarte-farbe=ch.swisstopo.zeitreihen,ch.bfs.gebaeude_wohnungs_register,ch.bav.haltestellen-oev,ch.swisstopo.swisstlm3d-wanderwege_visibility=false,false,false,true_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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

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 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

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 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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  wrote:

> 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
>
> ___
> 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] Misuse of name tag for route description

[Paul Allen]

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

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

[Jo]

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  wrote:

> On Sat, 2019-05-11 at 19:09 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> 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 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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 <
> 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 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

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 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

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) 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

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 that's just me.
>>
>
> 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 names (e.g. "Bernina Express",
> "MetropolitanLine" or "Marunouchi Line") seem to be quite rare.
>
In my city bus/tram routes have assigned number - either name is something like
"8", "172" or are unnamed with ref numbers.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

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 definitely NOT a "misuse".
>>
>
> It seems quite popular, but it doesn't agree with how the name=* tag
> is usually used.
>
The problem is that typical use of name tag for public transport routes is a 
misuse of name tag,
and that using name tag as description is accepted by a proposal.

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.

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

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

[Markus]

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.

Regards

Markus

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

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

[Jo]

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 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.
>
> But circular lines or trips have an intermediate stop or location,
> thus it should work with via=* even if from=* and to=* are the same.
>
> Regards
>
> Markus
>
> ___
> 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] Misuse of name tag for route description

[Markus]

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 unhelpful, if not 
> downright perverse.
>
> Route number alone is insufficient.  Not when there can be variant routes.

I agree that it's helpful to see route number and/or origin and
destination on maps, but that doesn't mean that we have to store that
information in the name=* tag, which is usually used to store names,
not descriptions. Renderers could just as well display the route's
description by combining ref=* and/or name=* (depending on what's
used) plus from=* [, via=*] and to=*, e.g.:

ref=201
from=Vevey Funiculaire
to=Villeneuve Gare

name=Metropolitan Line
from=Aldgate
to=Watford

or by displaying the description=* tag in case there are different
route variants, for example during rush hour, at the weekend or in the
evening.

Regards

Markus

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

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

[Markus]

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 village.
>
> That's true. I didn't think about that.

But circular lines or trips have an intermediate stop or location,
thus it should work with via=* even if from=* and to=* are the same.

Regards

Markus

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

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

[Johnparis]

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
"misuse".

Cheers,
John

On Sat, May 11, 2019, 16:10 Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> 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 bus”. It remains the destination. And just because
> the number and destination are the most useful piece of information when
> boarding a bus, it doesn’t mean that it is also the most useful information
> for a list or a map (origin is not important on the go, but it is for an
> “inventory”)
>
> Cheers, Martin
> ___
> 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] Misuse of name tag for route description

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 bus”. It remains the destination. And just because the number 
and destination are the most useful piece of information when boarding a bus, 
it doesn’t mean that it is also the most useful information for a list or a map 
(origin is not important on the go, but it is for an “inventory”)

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

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

[Warin]

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. "701 Le Prese Stazione", "201 Villeneuve", "IR
Chur" or "IC 3 Basel SBB"). Route names (e.g. "Bernina Express",
"MetropolitanLine" or "Marunouchi Line") seem to be quite rare.


Usually destination.  Except for the Cardigan Town Service.  But with 
PTV2 routes split into
two (or more relations), one for each direction, this isn't a 
problem.  The bus from Cardigan
to Aberystwyth says "Aberystwyth" and the bus from Aberystwyth to 
Cardigan says "Cardigan."

Elsewhere I've lived the bus might say XXX to YYY via ZZZ.

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 unhelpful, if not 
downright perverse.


Route number alone is insufficient.  Not when there can be variant routes.


If the bus/train only shows the route number .. then name = route number ???
Around me most buses show the route number and the destination .. or 
something like the destination depending on the service.




Of course, that all presumes the bus company is sane and rational.  
Unlike my local bus
company.  The 408 is a merger of the 406 Cardigan Town Service and the 
407 Cardigan to
St Dogmaels routes.  It displays "Cardigan Town Service and St 
Dogmaels" for most of its
route around Cardigan.   Then displays "Cardigan Town Service" as it 
sets off for St Dogmaels.
Except when it's on a variant school run, when the drivers decide to 
call it the 405, although it
isn't, because they think 405 means school service (it doesn't).  The 
405 is a school service
between a particular part of Cardigan and the primary school.  WIth 
what should be the 408
parked next to it, you have to ask the driver if it's the real 405 or 
the fake 405.





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

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

[Paul Allen]

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 names (e.g. "Bernina Express",
> "MetropolitanLine" or "Marunouchi Line") seem to be quite rare.
>

Usually destination.  Except for the Cardigan Town Service.  But with PTV2
routes split into
two (or more relations), one for each direction, this isn't a problem.  The
bus from Cardigan
to Aberystwyth says "Aberystwyth" and the bus from Aberystwyth to Cardigan
says "Cardigan."
Elsewhere I've lived the bus might say XXX to YYY via ZZZ.

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 unhelpful, if not
downright perverse.

Route number alone is insufficient.  Not when there can be variant routes.

Of course, that all presumes the bus company is sane and rational.  Unlike
my local bus
company.  The 408 is a merger of the 406 Cardigan Town Service and the 407
Cardigan to
St Dogmaels routes.  It displays "Cardigan Town Service and St Dogmaels"
for most of its
route around Cardigan.   Then displays "Cardigan Town Service" as it sets
off for St Dogmaels.
Except when it's on a variant school run, when the drivers decide to call
it the 405, although it
isn't, because they think 405 means school service (it doesn't).  The 405
is a school service
between a particular part of Cardigan and the primary school.  WIth what
should be the 408
parked next to it, you have to ask the driver if it's the real 405 or the
fake 405.

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 public transport routes having names that are from-to 
descriptions, and would not be too sure that „these are clearly not names“, 
often they may be seen as names. 
I don’t think that these should be retagged to description, because 
descriptions contain any kind of information which may often not be suitable as 
a name.

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

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

[Markus]

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 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 names (e.g. "Bernina Express",
"MetropolitanLine" or "Marunouchi Line") seem to be quite rare.

Regards

Markus

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

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

[Paul Allen]

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

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 there an opened issue at JOSM bug tracker requesting that change?

I requested something similar once and it was added quickly.

See instructions at https://josm.openstreetmap.de/newticket 
 for how one may create 
a new issie.

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

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 advisable in your opinion.

10 May 2019, 12:07 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com:

> 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 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. The reason are the editors:
> if a route is only tagged with ref=*, from=*, to=* (and description=*)
> and if more than one route variant or direction uses the same
> highway=*, one loses track of the routes and it becomes almost
> impossible to maintain them because editors only display the ref=*
> value in the relations list (e.g. there were multiple "13").
>
> I think it were be the best if editors would also display from=* and
> to* (or, instead, description=*) if there is no name=tag, in order
> that the name=* tag can be kept for routes that really have a name=*
> (e.g. Via Alpina).
>
> (I'm sending this email to the tagging mailing list as it doesn't only
> concern public transportation routes.)
>

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

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

[Markus]

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

Markus

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

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

[Markus]

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 the name, please leave it alone.

Don't worry, i don't plan to retag such route names you listed! :) The
routes i have in mind are public transport routes and *unnamed* hiking
routes that currently are tagged name="[: ] -
" -- not just by myself. Note that the wiki [1] and the
approved PTv2 scheme [2] recommend using the name tag in this way.

[1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport#Service_routes
[2]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?oldid=625726#Route

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.

[3]: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Dialog/RelationList

Regards

Markus

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

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

[Kevin Kenny]

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 look like
descriptions. Many are named for endpoints, with possible intermediate
waypoints: "Van Hoevenberg Trail to Mount Marcy", "Elk Lake Trail to
Mount Marcy", :Elk Lake to Lilian Brook Trail" "Giant Ledge-Panther
Mountain-Fox Hollow Trail", "Northville-Placid Trail", "Oliverea to
Mapledale Trail", "Ramapo-Dunderberg Trail", "Suffern-Bear Mountain
Trail"  to name just a handful out of dozens, if not hundreds. There
are also trails that are named for their waymarks: "Red Cross Trail",
"Blue Disc Trail" and "White Bar Trail" are the formal names of the
routes.

The published route descriptions at sites like
https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/9150.html include these descriptive
names. In the linked page, 'Long Path,' 'Curtiss-Ormsbee Trail' and
'Burroughs Range Trail' are most likely what you'd consider proper
names, but all the other names merely are taken from the endpoints.

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 the name, please leave it alone.

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

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

[Hufkratzer]

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
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

[Markus]

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 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. The reason are the editors:
if a route is only tagged with ref=*, from=*, to=* (and description=*)
and if more than one route variant or direction uses the same
highway=*, one loses track of the routes and it becomes almost
impossible to maintain them because editors only display the ref=*
value in the relations list (e.g. there were multiple "13").

I think it were be the best if editors would also display from=* and
to* (or, instead, description=*) if there is no name=tag, in order
that the name=* tag can be kept for routes that really have a name=*
(e.g. Via Alpina).

(I'm sending this email to the tagging mailing list as it doesn't only
concern public transportation routes.)

Regards

Markus

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