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

2020-04-03 Thread Peter Elderson
 Hm... That's a strange turnaround. The move from name to route_name may seem logical but the result is not. I still would want the end result to be that name=* will hold the clean name without the extras. But for some reason I do not see that happen some time soon... In the meantime, one of

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

2020-04-03 Thread Sarah Hoffmann
On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 06:38:20PM -0700, Paul Norman via Tagging wrote: > On 2020-04-02 2:33 p.m., Yves wrote: > > Surely this can be fixed if needed, but Osm2pgsql still has a > > route_name column? > > osm2pgsql doesn't have any columns. It will produce a database with the > columns you tell

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

2020-04-03 Thread Peter Elderson
Hm... That's a strange turnaround. The move from name to route_name may seem logical but the result is not. I still would want the end result to be that name=* will hold the clean name without the extras. But for some reason I do not see that happen some time soon... In the meantime, one of the

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

2020-04-02 Thread Paul Norman via Tagging
On 2020-04-02 2:33 p.m., Yves wrote: Surely this can be fixed if needed, but Osm2pgsql still has a route_name column? osm2pgsql doesn't have any columns. It will produce a database with the columns you tell it to, transformed how you tell it to.

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

2020-04-02 Thread Yves
Surely this can be fixed if needed, but Osm2pgsql still has a route_name column? A strange and evil case of rendering for the mapper. Yves Le 2 avril 2020 23:00:53 GMT+02:00, Richard Fairhurst a écrit : >Peter Elderson wrote: >> Suggestion for rendering: >> What about osmc:name=* >> I know,

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

2020-04-02 Thread Richard Fairhurst
Peter Elderson wrote: > Suggestion for rendering: > What about osmc:name=* > I know, doesn't exist, but it's a logical companion of osmc:symbol. > Definition would be: name to show on the map. > Definition should be: just the simple name as found in the field, or > the nae ecerybody knows and

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

2020-04-01 Thread Peter Elderson
Sorry if this appears twice - I got a bounce message first time. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op wo 1 apr. 2020 om 12:50 schreef Peter Elderson : > Suggestion for rendering: > > What about osmc:name=* > > I know, doesn't exist, but it's a logical companion of osmc:symbol. > > Definition would be: name

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

2020-04-01 Thread Peter Elderson
Suggestion for rendering: What about osmc:name=* I know, doesn't exist, but it's a logical companion of osmc:symbol. Definition would be: name to show on the map. Definition should be: just the simple name as found in the field, or the nae ecerybody knows and uses, no extra's. As with

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

2020-04-01 Thread Richard Fairhurst
Yves wrote: > Inevitably, the current situation is stained by the abilities of the > actual renderer, and the other way around. Maybe those renderers > should sit around a wiki page and document how ideal tag could be > and how they can be used in rendering, also taking into account > the

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

2020-03-30 Thread Andrew Hain
: 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 wa

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

2020-03-30 Thread Alan Mackie
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 12:33, Paul Allen wrote: > On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 10:42, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > >> * section_name (section? stage? leg?) >> > > Segment? Just a thought. > > Might be a bit too much baggage in that term? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Segment

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

2020-03-30 Thread Yves
Le 30 mars 2020 08:25:40 GMT+02:00, Peter Elderson a écrit : > >Note that not all renderings currently show the name or ref of the >parent trail relation,... Inevitably, the current situation is stained by the abilities of the actual renderer, and the other way around. Maybe those renderers

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

2020-03-30 Thread Peter Elderson
Yves: > 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. If I have a long foot trail, divided into 20 legs, should the leg route relations get the name tag of the trail? On the ground, some

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

2020-03-29 Thread 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

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

2020-03-29 Thread 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

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

2020-03-29 Thread 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

2020-03-29 Thread 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:  

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

2020-03-29 Thread 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

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

2020-03-29 Thread 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

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

2020-03-29 Thread 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

[Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

2020-03-29 Thread 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

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

2020-03-29 Thread 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

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

2020-03-29 Thread 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] Route names that aren’t names

2020-03-29 Thread Andrew Hain
] 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. T

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

2020-03-29 Thread 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

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

2020-03-29 Thread 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

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

2020-03-28 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 7:17 PM Paul Johnson wrote: >> I fully understand the difficulty with rendering only from route >> relations. I maintain a renderer that does it. It still needs some >> serious programming if it is to scale to handle minutely updates >> against the planet. The project

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

2020-03-28 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 5:45 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 5:57 PM 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

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

2020-03-28 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 5:57 PM 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

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

2020-03-28 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 5:29 PM Peter Neale via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Like Dave, I am not sure that I see a huge issue with a name and a > reference duplicating each other (or at least overlapping). > > Names and References are essentially doing the same job; they identify

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

2020-03-28 Thread Peter Neale via Tagging
k Route 51; ref=NCN 51.   Is that really a problem? Peter >Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 20:28:30 + >From: Dave F >To: tagging@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names >Message-ID: >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="

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

2020-03-28 Thread Warin
On 29/3/20 8:18 am, Clifford Snow wrote: Richard - and anyone else who can help. Can someone help with an overpass query to find problem route relations? I'm happy to help fix, but my overpass skills are, well to put it bluntly, not worth shit:-) You are not alone. However looking at

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

2020-03-28 Thread Richard Fairhurst
Dave Fox wrote: > I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem. What /is/ the "actual" name > for UK cycle routes? > NCN 4 is named as National Cycle Network Route 4 as that's what > Sustran call it. > I'm not convinced names & refs *have* to be mutually exclusive. Sure. NCN 4 is called "NCN 4" in the

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

2020-03-28 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 3:39 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > > Richard Fairhurst:: > >> 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

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

2020-03-28 Thread Clifford Snow
Richard - and anyone else who can help. Can someone help with an overpass query to find problem route relations? I'm happy to help fix, but my overpass skills are, well to put it bluntly, not worth shit:-) Thanks, Clifford On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 11:18 AM Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Hello

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

2020-03-28 Thread Peter Elderson
Richard Fairhurst:: > 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

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

2020-03-28 Thread Andy Townsend
On 28/03/2020 19:16, Cascafico Giovanni wrote: Well, if somebody takes care of rendering [1] OSM data structure, situation doesn't look so bad. [1] https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist?map=10!54.7983!-1.3075  Not really - that's just ignoring names on the main map and showing

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

2020-03-28 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 28/03/2020 18:18, 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:  

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

2020-03-28 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 2:30 PM Andrew Hain wrote: > Proposal for QA tools: flag anything with the same number in the name and > ref. > So much this. I see this a lot and had to fix a bit of that when I was doing I 405 work. "Interstate 405" is *not* a name and shouldn't be there...

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

2020-03-28 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 1:18 PM Richard Fairhurst wrote: > 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. > I'm OK with this.

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

2020-03-28 Thread Andrew Hain
Proposal for QA tools: flag anything with the same number in the name and ref. -- Andrew From: Richard Fairhurst Sent: 28 March 2020 18:18 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names Hello folks, Route

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

2020-03-28 Thread Cascafico Giovanni
Il giorno sab 28 mar 2020 alle ore 19:19 Richard Fairhurst < rich...@systemed.net> ha scritto: > > Hello folks, > 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. Well, if somebody takes care of

[Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

2020-03-28 Thread Richard Fairhurst
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