The Buses wiki page too need to be updated too. The controversial text note hasn’t prevented some editors from taking the PTv2 recommendation as actual guideline.
Edited in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Buses&diff=prev&oldid=2922960
Next step would be outright call to remove bad ptv2 tagging. While I fell comfortable with being sure that it would be a good step, I am less comfortable with just making edit myself.
Also, edited Tag:route=tram: Difference between revisions - OpenStreetMap Wiki
1 Like
On the other hand, do we really need a proposal to revert clearly terrible advise from that proposal?
Reaction to Removal of from/to tags in routes if the name already contains the values - #2 by Mateusz_Konieczny seems quite clear given typical level of disagreements in OSM tagging discussions.
3 Likes
They have seperate logins, so no they are not the same.
Perhaps making them use the same logins would make map makers more likely to keep the wiki accurate too ?
1 Like
Just stick to facts. What is really the name goes into the name tag.
What’s a description, inscription, reference, etc. does NOT belong to the name tag but in their corresponding tags.
Just stick always to known facts, that makes mapping easier for everyone - and makes OSM not just into a source for map-applications but also a source of facts for those who don’t know the facts.
6 Likes
That makes sense if the route name already includes the “from” and “to” values, removing separate “from:/to:” tags reduces redundancy and keeps the data cleaner. It seems like a logical way to avoid duplicate information.
It does, but at the cost of more complex processing. Even ignoring the question of how to parse the name in case that it contains the start and end.
Technically, the from and to tags are entirely redundant, because the first and the last stop are already part of the relation. Yet, it makes sense to include them, because that info is often used and avoiding the search for start and end makes a significant difference, both in implementation and in performance.
At the end of the day, removing redundancy isn’t a goal in itself. Redundancy can be helpful if used thoughtfully.
Arbitrarily putting stuff in name can’t be justified this way, though.
1 Like
I think the consensus is the opposite: if the route is already tagged with from= and to= tags, removing these from the name= content reduces redundancy and avoids duplicate information. If as a result the name= tag becomes empty, that’s not a bad thing.
8 Likes
Only for some kinds of relation. Hiking and other recreational routes (the main topic here) don’t have stops, and often start and end at anonymous nodes.
Even for public transport routes, I often see from and to used for the start and end points as expressed by the transport operator. In the cities I am familiar with, these are used in various contexts by bus operators, including the destination displayed on the front of the bus, and on both electronic and printed timetables at stops. Often the names refer to an area or suburb, not a specific bus stop. There is no way this could be derived from other data, so the tags are not redundant. I mention this because I feel it is a point sometimes overlooked by people who live in cities where the names of specific terminal stops are used more widely to identify routes.The original Public Transport v2 proposal seems to simply assume that everything should be based on stop names.
In any case I agree that avoiding redundancy should not be an objective in itself. The issue with invented name tags isn’t primarily that they are redundant, it’s the fact they are not really names.
7 Likes