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

[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 problems is rendering a proper name. That's what I 
aim at.

Let me explain my idea better. My suggestions is a solution for the renderer. 
Which isn't done, I know, except in the osmc:symbol tag. That's why the 
osmc-part is crucial. You cannot leave that out, because it 's the only 
accepted tagging-for-the-renderer as far as I know.

I had used osmc for a long time before I found out what the acronym actually 
stands for. Before I just  thought it meant "osm coding" or something like 
that. And even knowing what is actually stood for, I still think of it like 
that. Simply document the change of word, done. I'm sure somebody can probably 
come up with a nice appropriate c-word.

Then I thought, let's just add an extra component to the osmc:symbol 
definition. Hm, rewrite parsing routines, not great and changes an existing tag.
So then I thought: let's see osmc: as a namespace and simply add an element 
subtag.

Even if name=* is fixed in the far far future so that it contains clean names, 
it still could be useful to contain a short version of the official route name. 
I have seen a few official names coming by where a oneword display version for 
rendering would be nice to have.

Just a quick fix of one problem for one target user group (renderers). Does no 
harm to any other target user group. It does not force anyone to change the 
processing, but benefits the ones that implement it. 

Best, Peter Elderson


Op do 2 apr. 2020 om 23:02 schreef 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 uses, no extra's.
> 
> That's pretty good _except_ for the tag name, I think. The osmc: prefix
> comes from a particular (fairly obscure) bit of software called OSM
> Composer, and for historical reasons it's become the popular tag for
> symbols, but there's no reason to perpetuate that into other tags. I'd be
> 100% on board with using route_name= with your suggested definition.
> 
> 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] Route names that aren’t names

[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 it to, transformed how you tell it to.

The C transform still has a obscure hidden reference
to 'route_name' and will actually copy the name tag
there:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/osm2pgsql/blob/master/src/tagtransform-c.cpp#L244

Sarah

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

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

[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 problems is rendering a proper name. That's
what I aim at.

Let me explain my idea better. My suggestions is a solution for the
renderer. Which isn't done, I know, except in the osmc:symbol tag.
That's why the osmc-part is crucial. You cannot leave that out, because
it 's the only accepted tagging-for-the-renderer as far as I know.

I had used osmc for a long time before I found out what the acronym
actually stands for. Before I just  thought it meant "osm coding" or
something like that. And even knowing what is actually stood for, I still
think of it like that. Simply document the change of word, done. I'm sure
somebody can probably come up with a nice appropriate c-word.

Then I thought, let's just add an extra component to the osmc:symbol
definition. Hm, rewrite parsing routines, not great and changes an existing
tag.
So then I thought: let's see osmc: as a namespace and simply add an element
subtag.

Even if name=* is fixed in the far far future so that it contains clean
names, it still could be useful to contain a short version of the official
route name. I have seen a few official names coming by where a
oneword display version for rendering would be nice to have.

Just a quick fix of one problem for one target user group (renderers). Does
no harm to any other target user group. It does not force anyone to change
the processing, but benefits the ones that implement it.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op do 2 apr. 2020 om 23:02 schreef 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 uses, no extra's.
>
> That's pretty good _except_ for the tag name, I think. The osmc: prefix
> comes from a particular (fairly obscure) bit of software called OSM
> Composer, and for historical reasons it's become the popular tag for
> symbols, but there's no reason to perpetuate that into other tags. I'd be
> 100% on board with using route_name= with your suggested definition.
>
> 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] Route names that aren’t names

[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.



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

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

[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, 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.
>
>That's pretty good _except_ for the tag name, I think. The osmc: prefix
>comes from a particular (fairly obscure) bit of software called OSM
>Composer, and for historical reasons it's become the popular tag for
>symbols, but there's no reason to perpetuate that into other tags. I'd
>be
>100% on board with using route_name= with your suggested definition.
>
>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] Route names that aren’t names

[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 uses, no extra's.

That's pretty good _except_ for the tag name, I think. The osmc: prefix
comes from a particular (fairly obscure) bit of software called OSM
Composer, and for historical reasons it's become the popular tag for
symbols, but there's no reason to perpetuate that into other tags. I'd be
100% on board with using route_name= with your suggested definition.

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

[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 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 osmc:symbol, it's not mapping for the renderer, but mapping for
> rendering.
> Implementation rule for the renderers: if exists osmc:name , else
> .
>
> Best, Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op wo 1 apr. 2020 om 12:23 schreef 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 ability to parse nested relations or not with their respective
>> > toolchain.
>>
>> With my cycle.travel hat on: I already show route refs (as shields). I
>> would
>> like to show route names without duplicating the ref or showing extraneous
>> information. I don't really mind whether the tag is name= or
>> official_name=
>> or route_name= or brian= or whatever. Parsing nested relations is no
>> problem, I already do that.
>>
>> To be honest, I'm perfectly happy to sit down for a day, armed with a
>> bunch
>> of regexes, and go through the current list of names to get alternatives
>> that I can hard-code into cycle.travel. But that doesn't help anyone
>> else!
>>
>> 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] Route names that aren’t names

[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 osmc:symbol, it's not mapping for the renderer, but mapping for
rendering.
Implementation rule for the renderers: if exists osmc:name , else
.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op wo 1 apr. 2020 om 12:23 schreef 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 ability to parse nested relations or not with their respective
> > toolchain.
>
> With my cycle.travel hat on: I already show route refs (as shields). I
> would
> like to show route names without duplicating the ref or showing extraneous
> information. I don't really mind whether the tag is name= or official_name=
> or route_name= or brian= or whatever. Parsing nested relations is no
> problem, I already do that.
>
> To be honest, I'm perfectly happy to sit down for a day, armed with a bunch
> of regexes, and go through the current list of names to get alternatives
> that I can hard-code into cycle.travel. But that doesn't help anyone else!
>
> 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] Route names that aren’t names

[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 ability to parse nested relations or not with their respective 
> toolchain.

With my cycle.travel hat on: I already show route refs (as shields). I would
like to show route names without duplicating the ref or showing extraneous
information. I don't really mind whether the tag is name= or official_name=
or route_name= or brian= or whatever. Parsing nested relations is no
problem, I already do that.

To be honest, I'm perfectly happy to sit down for a day, armed with a bunch
of regexes, and go through the current list of names to get alternatives
that I can hard-code into cycle.travel. But that doesn't help anyone else!

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

[Andrew Hain]

I’ve added a ticket to the side report:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/2573

--
Andrew


From: Andrew Hain 
Sent: 29 March 2020 11:19
To: Sarah Hoffmann ; Tag discussion, strategy and related 
tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

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

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

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

[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 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 
ability to parse nested relations or not with their respective toolchain.
Improvements could go both sides...
Yves 

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

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

[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 markings show the 
route name along the entire route, but most markings are just the symbol.

Note that not all renderings currently show the name or ref of the parent trail 
relation, most renderings show the names or refs of the separate leg relations. 
I am not judging this, it's just that when I remove the names and refs, they 
disappear from those maps.

Best, Peter Elderson





___
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

[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

[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 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] 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] 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

[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

[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] 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

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] 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] 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

[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 has, to put it mildly, less than my
>> highest priority, since Paul and Sarah have quite sternly discouraged
>> me from pursuing the approach that I took to the problem. The issue is
>> that the rendering servers are already grievously overloaded, and any
>> new functionality such as this needs to come at essentially zero cost
>> at render time, and only negligible cost at the time of minutely
>> updates. I've not been clever enough to meet that challenge, and while
>> new ideas might come to me, I've so far come up empty.
>
>  Which Paul?  I'm on Team Relation here.  It's been 13 years, relations 
> really need to be treated like any other primative.

Sorry, Paul Norman and Sarah Hoffmann.  I understand what they're up
against, I really do. And they can afford even less time and energy
for this than I can.
-- 
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

[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 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.
>
> We Yanks follow that convention for route _relations_, where we can
> identify the network. Otherwise, it really doesn't work for us,  It's
> entirely possible to have intersections between two routes with the
> same number that belong to different networks. (Yes, it's confusing,
> but we are used to identifying routes as "Interstate 95", "US 9", "New
> York 20", "County Road 84",  even in speaking.)  For us to leave
> that out would be like you saying the 4 or the 180 for the M4 or the
> A180.
>

Doesn't really work for most of Europe, either.  I get that European Truck
Simulator 2 and American Truck Simulator are highly stylized
representations of both regions, but in both cases, it's pretty obvious the
only places within the scope of those games that "*doesn't*" have this
problem is the UK and Arizona.  Except they still do, because bus, bicycle
and foot routes still run over the same ways as motorist routes...


> You convinced me that refs are not names, so I've been working in my
> local area of killing off the use of the ref as the name, even in
> cases where the road has no other name: 'ref="CR 104" noname=yes' in
> preference to 'ref="CR 104" name="County Road 104"').  But as long as
> we suffer with refs on ways, we need at least to make the refs useful.
>

Most of Oklahoma and parts of Kansas also have the variation "E0104 Road"
which is really "CR E0104"...this one's going to be hard to crush since
there's slightly higher than one county road per mile on average on a state
that has extents of 478 miles east to west and 231 north to south, with
numbers *usually* but not always consistent across counties.  It goes
sideways in Osage County, the panhandle and the mountainous counties where
they get put in pretty much wherever terrain will allow, and there's 77
counties, so, probably somewhere between 25,000 and 50,000 county roads
that need to be updated.


> (That gets tricky when one jurisdiction's road crosses over into
> another jurisdiction.  About half of NY 120A
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/407958 is in Connecticut but
> it's signed and maintained as a New York state highway.)
>

Nice thing is relations don't care.  Which is handy because Oklahoma has a
couple routes that go into Texas, and both Oklahoma and Arkansas, and
Oregon and Washington have routes that go into each other (Oklahoma and
Arkansas having a road that's dual signed as an Oklahoma and Arkansas state
highway; largely as a result of the road roughly following the state line
but the line didn't care about terrain and roads obviously do).


> 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 has, to put it mildly, less than my
> highest priority, since Paul and Sarah have quite sternly discouraged
> me from pursuing the approach that I took to the problem. The issue is
> that the rendering servers are already grievously overloaded, and any
> new functionality such as this needs to come at essentially zero cost
> at render time, and only negligible cost at the time of minutely
> updates. I've not been clever enough to meet that challenge, and while
> new ideas might come to me, I've so far come up empty.
>
>
 Which Paul?  I'm on Team Relation here.  It's been 13 years, relations
really need to be treated like any other primative.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[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 in the ref alone. The M4 just has ref=M4, not name=M4.

We Yanks follow that convention for route _relations_, where we can
identify the network. Otherwise, it really doesn't work for us,  It's
entirely possible to have intersections between two routes with the
same number that belong to different networks. (Yes, it's confusing,
but we are used to identifying routes as "Interstate 95", "US 9", "New
York 20", "County Road 84",  even in speaking.)  For us to leave
that out would be like you saying the 4 or the 180 for the M4 or the
A180.

You convinced me that refs are not names, so I've been working in my
local area of killing off the use of the ref as the name, even in
cases where the road has no other name: 'ref="CR 104" noname=yes' in
preference to 'ref="CR 104" name="County Road 104"').  But as long as
we suffer with refs on ways, we need at least to make the refs useful.

(That gets tricky when one jurisdiction's road crosses over into
another jurisdiction.  About half of NY 120A
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/407958 is in Connecticut but
it's signed and maintained as a New York state highway.)

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 has, to put it mildly, less than my
highest priority, since Paul and Sarah have quite sternly discouraged
me from pursuing the approach that I took to the problem. The issue is
that the rendering servers are already grievously overloaded, and any
new functionality such as this needs to come at essentially zero cost
at render time, and only negligible cost at the time of minutely
updates. I've not been clever enough to meet that challenge, and while
new ideas might come to me, I've so far come up empty.

-- 
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

[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
> "things"; they are proper nouns.
>
> We probably expect a name to be a word (or words) and a reference to be an
> alphanumeric string that is not a word (or words), but that is not always
> the case.  That big mountain is called "K2"; that is its name.
>
> Clearly, there are many cases where name and reference are different and
> are both required - e.g.Name: Watling Street; Ref: A5.  (Mind you,
> perhaps "A5" should be the name of a route relation, which includes a
> stretch of road called "Watling Street", so that may be a poor example)
>

A better example would be areas that have both "state highways" and "state
routes" as unique concepts.  Like for example, in Oregon, every last road
in the state highway inventory has a ref.  All of them.  Not all of them
are part of state routes, however.  Top of the head example would be
Interstate Avenue in Portland, which is part of State Highway 1W but no
longer part of 99W (longtimers will remember this and generally use
Interstate as if it were 99W though).  But the highway number belongs to
the road, not the route.  Pennsylvania has something similar going on,
particularly with the 4-digit state highways.

Moving all, and I do mean *all*, tags that belong to the route to a route
relation would be the best way to model this (and one of the things that
was being tossed around back when I joined in the prep for API 0.5).

In other cases names may include words and numbers (e.g. I don't think that
> National Cycle Network Route 51 has any other name).  One could then say
> that "NCN 51" is an abbreviated name and not a reference.  AFAIK, there is
> not an accepted tag for an abbreviated name,  so (I assume) mappers have
> used the ref= tag for this (after all it looks like a reference), which
> gives us:  name=National Cycle Network Route 51; ref=NCN 51.
>

route=bicycle
network=ncn
ref=51
noname=yes

Route relations really are that easy.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Peter Neale via Tagging]

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 
"things"; they are proper nouns.
We probably expect a name to be a word (or words) and a reference to be an 
alphanumeric string that is not a word (or words), but that is not always the 
case.  That big mountain is called "K2"; that is its name. Clearly, there are 
many cases where name and reference are different and are both required - 
e.g.Name: Watling Street; Ref: A5.  (Mind you, perhaps "A5" should be the name 
of a route relation, which includes a stretch of road called "Watling Street", 
so that may be a poor example) 
In other cases names may include words and numbers (e.g. I don't think that 
National Cycle Network Route 51 has any other name).  One could then say that 
"NCN 51" is an abbreviated name and not a reference.  AFAIK, there is not an 
accepted tag for an abbreviated name,  so (I assume) mappers have used the ref= 
tag for this (after all it looks like a reference), which gives us:  
name=National Cycle Network 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="flowed"
>>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:
>>  https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9579
>>  name=NCN National Route 1
>>
>> Hm, ok. That’s not the name of the route, it’s a duplication of the ref (and 
>> network)


>
>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.

>DaveF

  ___
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 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 waymarked trails with the route box open would gives 
a quick guide and those can then be downloaded into your editor.


https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist?map=10!54.7983!-1.3075



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

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

[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 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.

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. 

(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. :) ).

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

[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 of the
>> name tag; and let’s have a concerted effort to remove them from existing
>> name tags.
>
>
> I was under the impression the note=* tag is for mapper's notes about the
> object.
> I would think the best tag for a descriptive text would be the
> description=* tag.
>
> Question about the ref=* tag: should a ref be something visible along the
> route?
>

Generally, and that's one of the reasons relations were introduced as a
primitive in API 0.5 13 years ago.  Because multiplexed routes are a thing,
not only between the same network but within multiple networks (such as a
way that has a bus route, a county and a state bike route, is part of a US
historic highway, and a current state highway), and ref=* on a way to
describe a specific kind of route that traverses it makes very little sense.

Can we please kill ref=* on way already?  Please?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[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 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
>
> Hm, ok. That’s not the name of the route, it’s a duplication of the ref
> (and network) - something we’ve known not to do with the name/ref tags for
> roads since time immemorial. No matter, there are other relations for the
> way, so let’s see if they’re any better:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9476069
> name=EuroVelo 12 - North Sea Cycle Route - part United Kingdom 5
>
> That’s _definitely_ not the name of a route. “part United Kingdom 5” is
> some OSM mapper’s shorthand. If I were to tell someone that I’m having a
> holiday on “part United Kingdom 5”, even someone who works for the route
> authorities at Sustrans or the European Cycling Federation, they’d look at
> me blankly. Anyway, this has a parent relation:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9476239
> name=EuroVelo 12 - North Sea Cycle Route - part United Kingdom
>
> Nope, that’s not great either. It in turn has a parent relation:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1207220
> name=EuroVelo 12 - North Sea Cycle Route
>
> That’s not good. It duplicates the ref and the network; it enforces
> arbitrary punctuation upon the data consumer. It is, I guess, the least
> wrong of any of these names. But that’s not saying much.
>
> This isn't just a British thing, or an NCN thing, or a EuroVelo thing.
> Refs in names are depressingly ubiquitous. Better still: there are hundreds
> of routes with something like ref=12-83, name=(12) - (83) - with the
> added brackets meaning you can’t even filter them out based on a simple
> match. Then there are routes called "Aare-Route (Etappe 3)” and 
> "Alpenpanorama-Route-
> Etappe 6 (Thun-Fribourg)” and "[D10] Elberadweg [Abschnitt K]
> Dessau-Roßlau - Elster [linkselbisch]”. I wish I were making this up.
>
> The upshot: bad luck if you want to render the actual names of routes on a
> map. You can’t.
>
> 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.
>
> Richard
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[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 them from existing name tags.


I was under the impression the note=* tag is for mapper's notes about the
object.
I would think the best tag for a descriptive text would be the
description=* tag.

Question about the ref=* tag: should a ref be something visible along the
route?
-- 
Best, Peter Elderson



___
> 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

[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 
superrelation names on the right in a separate legend. Try figuring out 
from 
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist?map=11!53.1028!-0.8416 
which "NB" is which without using the mouseover highlight.


I ended up having to code specifically for the data (something you 
couldn't do internationally). 
https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L6170 
means that at 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=14=53.09613=-0.9523 
route 645 just gets a ref but "National Byway (Southwell Loop)" gets a 
name, so that you can see at 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15=53.13343=-0.84475 
which one is which.


Interestingly I'd say that 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1425019 is actually named 
correctly. although a quick look at the route suggests that the "phantom 
mergers" have been at it again. :(


Best Regards,

Andy





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

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

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

Hm, ok. That’s not the name of the route, it’s a duplication of the ref (and 
network)




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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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 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

Hm, ok. That’s not the name of the route, it’s a duplication of the ref (and 
network) - something we’ve known not to do with the name/ref tags for roads 
since time immemorial. No matter, there are other relations for the way, so 
let’s see if they’re any better:
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9476069
 name=EuroVelo 12 - North Sea Cycle Route - part United Kingdom 5

That’s _definitely_ not the name of a route. “part United Kingdom 5” is some 
OSM mapper’s shorthand. If I were to tell someone that I’m having a holiday on 
“part United Kingdom 5”, even someone who works for the route authorities at 
Sustrans or the European Cycling Federation, they’d look at me blankly. Anyway, 
this has a parent relation:
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9476239
 name=EuroVelo 12 - North Sea Cycle Route - part United Kingdom

Nope, that’s not great either. It in turn has a parent relation:
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1207220
 name=EuroVelo 12 - North Sea Cycle Route

That’s not good. It duplicates the ref and the network; it enforces arbitrary 
punctuation upon the data consumer. It is, I guess, the least wrong of any of 
these names. But that’s not saying much.

This isn't just a British thing, or an NCN thing, or a EuroVelo thing. Refs in 
names are depressingly ubiquitous. Better still: there are hundreds of routes 
with something like ref=12-83, name=(12) - (83) - with the added brackets 
meaning you can’t even filter them out based on a simple match. Then there are 
routes called "Aare-Route (Etappe 3)” and "Alpenpanorama-Route- Etappe 6 
(Thun-Fribourg)” and "[D10] Elberadweg [Abschnitt K] Dessau-Roßlau - Elster 
[linkselbisch]”. I wish I were making this up.

The upshot: bad luck if you want to render the actual names of routes on a map. 
You can’t.

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.

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

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

[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 rendering [1] OSM data structure, situation
doesn't look so bad.

[1] https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist?map=10!54.7983!-1.3075
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

[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
 name=NCN National Route 1

Hm, ok. That’s not the name of the route, it’s a duplication of the ref (and 
network) - something we’ve known not to do with the name/ref tags for roads 
since time immemorial. No matter, there are other relations for the way, so 
let’s see if they’re any better:
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9476069
 name=EuroVelo 12 - North Sea Cycle Route - part United Kingdom 5

That’s _definitely_ not the name of a route. “part United Kingdom 5” is some 
OSM mapper’s shorthand. If I were to tell someone that I’m having a holiday on 
“part United Kingdom 5”, even someone who works for the route authorities at 
Sustrans or the European Cycling Federation, they’d look at me blankly. Anyway, 
this has a parent relation:
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9476239
 name=EuroVelo 12 - North Sea Cycle Route - part United Kingdom

Nope, that’s not great either. It in turn has a parent relation:
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1207220
 name=EuroVelo 12 - North Sea Cycle Route

That’s not good. It duplicates the ref and the network; it enforces arbitrary 
punctuation upon the data consumer. It is, I guess, the least wrong of any of 
these names. But that’s not saying much.

This isn't just a British thing, or an NCN thing, or a EuroVelo thing. Refs in 
names are depressingly ubiquitous. Better still: there are hundreds of routes 
with something like ref=12-83, name=(12) - (83) - with the added brackets 
meaning you can’t even filter them out based on a simple match. Then there are 
routes called "Aare-Route (Etappe 3)” and "Alpenpanorama-Route- Etappe 6 
(Thun-Fribourg)” and "[D10] Elberadweg [Abschnitt K] Dessau-Roßlau - Elster 
[linkselbisch]”. I wish I were making this up.

The upshot: bad luck if you want to render the actual names of routes on a map. 
You can’t.

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.

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