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 <rich...@systemed.net>: > 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
