Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

2023-10-23 Thread Alan Mackie
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 at 17:15, Yves via Tagging 
wrote:

> It's never to late to fix a mistake?
> Yves
>
> Probably best for that fix to have an approved proposal too to mitigate
the risk of an edit war.

>
> Le 23 octobre 2023 09:46:05 GMT+02:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
>>
>> On 22/10/23 19:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> sent from a phone
>>>
>>> On 20 Oct 2023, at 10:23, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>>>  wrote:

 maybe just removing this bad advise without proposal would be a good idea

>>> +1
>>> --
>>>
>>
>>
>> Issue: that wording is in the approved proposal for PTv2 ...
>>
>> Removing the wording is 'a good idea' .. but that would go against the 
>> approved proposal .. catch 22.
>> --
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

2023-10-23 Thread Yves via Tagging
It's never to late to fix a mistake? 
Yves 

Le 23 octobre 2023 09:46:05 GMT+02:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>On 22/10/23 19:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> 
>> sent from a phone
>> 
>>> On 20 Oct 2023, at 10:23, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> maybe just removing this bad advise without proposal would be a good idea
>> +1
>> ___
>
>
>Issue: that wording is in the approved proposal for PTv2 ...
>
>Removing the wording is 'a good idea' .. but that would go against the 
>approved proposal .. catch 22.
>
>
>___
>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] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

2023-10-23 Thread Warin



On 22/10/23 19:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 20 Oct 2023, at 10:23, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
 wrote:

maybe just removing this bad advise without proposal would be a good idea

+1
___



Issue: that wording is in the approved proposal for PTv2 ...

Removing the wording is 'a good idea' .. but that would go against the 
approved proposal .. catch 22.



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


Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

2023-10-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer



sent from a phone

> On 20 Oct 2023, at 10:23, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> maybe just removing this bad advise without proposal would be a good idea

+1
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

2023-10-20 Thread Warin


On 20/10/23 10:32, Paul Johnson wrote:



On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 2:31 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


On 17/10/23 23:22, Paul Johnson wrote:



On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:51 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


On 17/10/23 04:17, Paul Johnson wrote:

Presently, it's common for route relations to have names
that violate "name is only the name" and "name is not ref"
and "name is not description" rules for name=* tags.



I don't find it common in 'my area' of mapping. One or two
examples would demonstrate the situation?


In any case:

The name tag is used on may things for example; buildings,
parks, schools, highways ...

The use of the name tag as 'name only' applies where ever the
name tag is used. This is similar for other tags such as
elevation, width, colour etc. No matter what feature they are
used on the tags carry the same characteristics and
restrictions. It is not necessary to repeat
these characteristics and restrictions for every main feature.

Routes have names, too!  For example, here's the relation for OK
51, named for the name of the route.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3108562

Meanwhile, I 40 in Arkansas has a good example of a name that is
actually a ref and a description, not a name.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6843700

 Finally, OK 19 is an example of a properly described no-name
route. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7479405



Ok. I still don't see a necessity of repeating the name tag
information inside the relation tag... Will you also repeat the
ref tag information, the description tag information? How about
the surface tag, maxspeed tag etc etc..

The name of the route has nothing to do with the name of the member ways.



Confusing is probably the issue here?

I am taking of 'the name tag' possibly I should have said the 'OSM key 
name' .. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name


Not taking of any individual feature with a 'name tag'.

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

2023-10-19 Thread Paul Johnson
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 2:31 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 17/10/23 23:22, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:51 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 17/10/23 04:17, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>
>> Presently, it's common for route relations to have names that violate
>> "name is only the name" and "name is not ref" and "name is not description"
>> rules for name=* tags.
>>
>>
>> I don't find it common in 'my area' of mapping. One or two examples would
>> demonstrate the situation?
>>
>>
>> In any case:
>>
>> The name tag is used on may things for example; buildings, parks,
>> schools, highways ...
>>
>> The use of the name tag as 'name only' applies where ever the name tag is
>> used. This is similar for other tags such as elevation, width, colour etc.
>> No matter what feature they are used on the tags carry the same
>> characteristics and restrictions. It is not necessary to repeat
>> these characteristics and restrictions for every main feature.
>>
> Routes have names, too!  For example, here's the relation for OK 51, named
> for the name of the route.  https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3108562
>
> Meanwhile, I 40 in Arkansas has a good example of a name that is actually
> a ref and a description, not a name.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6843700
>
>  Finally, OK 19 is an example of a properly described no-name route.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7479405
>
>
> Ok. I still don't see a necessity of repeating the name tag information
> inside the relation tag... Will you also repeat the ref tag information,
> the description tag information? How about the surface tag, maxspeed tag
> etc etc..
>
The name of the route has nothing to do with the name of the member ways.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

2023-10-18 Thread Warin


On 18/10/23 19:15, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




Oct 18, 2023, 09:30 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:


On 17/10/23 23:22, Paul Johnson wrote:



On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:51 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


On 17/10/23 04:17, Paul Johnson wrote:

Presently, it's common for route relations to have names
that violate "name is only the name" and "name is not ref"
and "name is not description" rules for name=* tags.



I don't find it common in 'my area' of mapping. One or two
examples would demonstrate the situation?


In any case:

The name tag is used on may things for example; buildings,
parks, schools, highways ...

The use of the name tag as 'name only' applies where ever the
name tag is used. This is similar for other tags such as
elevation, width, colour etc. No matter what feature they are
used on the tags carry the same characteristics and
restrictions. It is not necessary to repeat
these characteristics and restrictions for every main feature.

Routes have names, too!  For example, here's the relation for OK
51, named for the name of the route.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3108562

Meanwhile, I 40 in Arkansas has a good example of a name that is
actually a ref and a description, not a name.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6843700

 Finally, OK 19 is an example of a properly described no-name
route. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7479405



Ok. I still don't see a necessity of repeating the name tag
information inside the relation tag...

this proposal wants to remove wrong advise that advocates adding fake 
names to

relations

maybe just removing this bad advise without proposal would be a good idea



Arrr now I see it !

This only applies to the 'name' 'advice' on PTv2

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport#Service_routes

has

"name = /:  → "/

/
/

That would mean the name tag contains the information already in the 
other tags... redundant.


The Australian 'India Pacific' train journey has the name 'India 
Pacific' .. no 'train', nor ref nor from nor to...


 The Russian 'Trans Siberian' train journey .. South African 'Blue 
Train' etc etc.. none of these real names translate to the above PTv2 
'name'.



Does this proposal only apply to the PTv2??? If so why not say so?

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

2023-10-18 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Oct 18, 2023, 09:30 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

>
>
>
> On 17/10/23 23:22, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at4:51 AM Warin <>> 61sundow...@gmail.com>> 
>> >wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17/10/23 04:17, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>>
 Presently, it's common for route  relations to have names 
 that violate "name is only the  name" and "name is not 
 ref" and "name is not  description" rules for name=* tags.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't find it common in 'my area' of mapping. One ortwo 
>>> examples would demonstrate the situation?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In any case:
>>>
>>>
>>> The name tag is used on may things for example;buildings, 
>>> parks, schools, highways ... 
>>>
>>>
>>> The use of the name tag as 'name only' applies whereever 
>>> the name tag is used. This is similar for othertags such as 
>>> elevation, width, colour etc. No matterwhat feature they 
>>> are used on the tags carry the samecharacteristics and 
>>> restrictions. It is not necessary torepeat these 
>>> characteristics and restrictions for everymain feature.
>>>
>>>
>> Routes have names, too!  For example, here's the relationfor OK 
>> 51, named for the name of the route.  >> 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3108562
>>
>> Meanwhile, I 40 in Arkansas has a good example of a namethat is 
>> actually a ref and a description, not a name.  >> 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6843700
>>
>>  Finally, OK 19 is an example of a properly describedno-name 
>> route.  >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7479405
>>
>
>
>
>
> Ok. I still don't see a necessity of repeating the name tag  information 
> inside the relation tag...
>
>
this proposal wants to remove wrong advise that advocates adding fake names to
relations

maybe just removing this bad advise without proposal would be a good idea
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

2023-10-18 Thread Warin


On 17/10/23 23:22, Paul Johnson wrote:



On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:51 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


On 17/10/23 04:17, Paul Johnson wrote:

Presently, it's common for route relations to have names that
violate "name is only the name" and "name is not ref" and "name
is not description" rules for name=* tags.



I don't find it common in 'my area' of mapping. One or two
examples would demonstrate the situation?


In any case:

The name tag is used on may things for example; buildings, parks,
schools, highways ...

The use of the name tag as 'name only' applies where ever the name
tag is used. This is similar for other tags such as elevation,
width, colour etc. No matter what feature they are used on the
tags carry the same characteristics and restrictions. It is not
necessary to repeat these characteristics and restrictions for
every main feature.

Routes have names, too!  For example, here's the relation for OK 51, 
named for the name of the route. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3108562


Meanwhile, I 40 in Arkansas has a good example of a name that is 
actually a ref and a description, not a name. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6843700


 Finally, OK 19 is an example of a properly described no-name route. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7479405



Ok. I still don't see a necessity of repeating the name tag information 
inside the relation tag... Will you also repeat the ref tag information, 
the description tag information? How about the surface tag, maxspeed tag 
etc etc..


In some cases where I have come across it I have simply stated 'The name 
tag is for the name only. See 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only' and I 
follow it up by making the correction/s. Don't think I have ever had an 
argument about it.


The https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/331438 use of the name tag 
goes back 14 years ago ... to a mapper who was only just starting out.. 
The ref tag came along some 3 years later... You may find similar 
historical sources for the use of the name tag...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

2023-10-17 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Oct 17, 2023, 11:49 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

>
>
>
> On 17/10/23 04:17, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>> Presently, it's common for route relations to havenames that violate 
>> "name is only the name" and "name is not ref"and "name is not 
>> description" rules for name=* tags.
>>
>
>
>
>
> I don't find it common in 'my area' of mapping. One or two  examples 
> would demonstrate the situation?
>
>
See 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Use_description_instead_of_name_for_route_relations#Examples

name=Tram 64 (nocny): Bronowice Małe => Os. Piastów
from https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3171712 is an example

this tram line has no name

"Tram" is additionally wrong as not matching local language and "nocny" part)

useful label could be made from ref=* from=* to=* tags and there is no need
at all for this fake name.

Note that info that it is a night tram is not provided in any structured form, 
only as part of the fake name. This fake name should be removed and info
that it is a night tram put into some tag or into description=* 

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

2023-10-17 Thread Paul Johnson
On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:51 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 17/10/23 04:17, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> Presently, it's common for route relations to have names that violate
> "name is only the name" and "name is not ref" and "name is not description"
> rules for name=* tags.
>
>
> I don't find it common in 'my area' of mapping. One or two examples would
> demonstrate the situation?
>
>
> In any case:
>
> The name tag is used on may things for example; buildings, parks, schools,
> highways ...
>
> The use of the name tag as 'name only' applies where ever the name tag is
> used. This is similar for other tags such as elevation, width, colour etc.
> No matter what feature they are used on the tags carry the same
> characteristics and restrictions. It is not necessary to repeat
> these characteristics and restrictions for every main feature.
>
Routes have names, too!  For example, here's the relation for OK 51, named
for the name of the route.  https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3108562

Meanwhile, I 40 in Arkansas has a good example of a name that is actually a
ref and a description, not a name.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6843700

 Finally, OK 19 is an example of a properly described no-name route.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7479405
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

2023-10-17 Thread Warin


On 17/10/23 04:17, Paul Johnson wrote:
Presently, it's common for route relations to have names that violate 
"name is only the name" and "name is not ref" and "name is not 
description" rules for name=* tags.



I don't find it common in 'my area' of mapping. One or two examples 
would demonstrate the situation?



In any case:

The name tag is used on may things for example; buildings, parks, 
schools, highways ...


The use of the name tag as 'name only' applies where ever the name tag 
is used. This is similar for other tags such as elevation, width, colour 
etc. No matter what feature they are used on the tags carry the same 
characteristics and restrictions. It is not necessary to repeat 
these characteristics and restrictions for every main feature.





On Sun, Oct 8, 2023, 10:24 Volker Schmidt  wrote:

Could you give some more examples to illustrate what the problem
is that you want to resolve.


On Sun, 8 Oct 2023, 00:23 Kevin Kenny, 
wrote:



On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 4:50 PM Andrew Hain
 wrote:

I have started a new proposal: that the name tag should be
restricted to the same meaning for route relations that it
has on other elements and that the description tag should
be used otherwise.


The proposal is unclear and appears to deprecate route and way
names of a form that are common around here for what I
consider to be good reasons. (In any case, 'description'
appears to be an inappropriate tag for whatever it is you are
proposing.) More details on the talk page.
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

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


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


Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

2023-10-16 Thread Paul Johnson
Presently, it's common for route relations to have names that violate "name
is only the name" and "name is not ref" and "name is not description" rules
for name=* tags.

On Sun, Oct 8, 2023, 10:24 Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> Could you give some more examples to illustrate what the problem is that
> you want to resolve.
>
>
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2023, 00:23 Kevin Kenny,  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 4:50 PM Andrew Hain 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have started a new proposal: that the name tag should be restricted to
>>> the same meaning for route relations that it has on other elements and that
>>> the description tag should be used otherwise.
>>>
>>
>> The proposal is unclear and appears to deprecate route and way names of a
>> form that are common around here for what I consider to be good reasons.
>> (In any case, 'description' appears to be an inappropriate tag for whatever
>> it is you are proposing.) More details on the talk page.
>> --
>> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

2023-10-08 Thread Volker Schmidt
Could you give some more examples to illustrate what the problem is that
you want to resolve.


On Sun, 8 Oct 2023, 00:23 Kevin Kenny,  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 4:50 PM Andrew Hain 
> wrote:
>
>> I have started a new proposal: that the name tag should be restricted to
>> the same meaning for route relations that it has on other elements and that
>> the description tag should be used otherwise.
>>
>
> The proposal is unclear and appears to deprecate route and way names of a
> form that are common around here for what I consider to be good reasons.
> (In any case, 'description' appears to be an inappropriate tag for whatever
> it is you are proposing.) More details on the talk page.
> --
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
> ___
> 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] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

2023-10-07 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 4:50 PM Andrew Hain 
wrote:

> I have started a new proposal: that the name tag should be restricted to
> the same meaning for route relations that it has on other elements and that
> the description tag should be used otherwise.
>

The proposal is unclear and appears to deprecate route and way names of a
form that are common around here for what I consider to be good reasons.
(In any case, 'description' appears to be an inappropriate tag for whatever
it is you are proposing.) More details on the talk page.
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

2023-10-07 Thread Andrew Hain
I have started a new proposal: that the name tag should be restricted to the 
same meaning for route relations that it has on other elements and that the 
description tag should be used otherwise.


https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposal-use-description-instead-of-name-for-route-relations/104656/1
[https://community-cdn.openstreetmap.org/uploads/default/original/1X/1ec32427766f2efdc81c1fd1a6879e4084bfd00d.png]
Proposal: Use description instead of name for route 
relations
I have started a new proposal: that the name tag should be restricted to the 
same meaning for route relations that it has on other elements and that the 
description tag should be used otherwise. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Use_description_instead_of_name_for_route_relations
community.openstreetmap.org


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Use_description_instead_of_name_for_route_relations


--

Andrew

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