Restructure wiki page key:name?

gileri · 2024-03-24T10:07:48.805Z

I agree about the intent, the goals and means you mention @Robhubi.

I have to fix around 5 names per week in the relatively small area I work within, directly related to the documentation issue examples you cite.

Robhubi · 2024-03-24T19:35:02.215Z

Mateusz_Konieczny:

But I would split changes to the definition of such important tag from changes to structure. Can we do one of them one at time rather than packaging them together?

It makes little sense to work on the text if the objective is up for discussion.

Mateusz_Konieczny:

I have doubts about changing “The primary name” to “The proper name”.

That’s not quite right. In principle, it is about replacing “name” with “proper name”. If “primary” is used in the context of “the more important of several”, the replacement is “primary proper name” (see my blog, Issues 3rd example), otherwise primary is omitted.

Robhubi · 2024-03-24T19:48:20.068Z

Minh_Nguyen:

The reference to independent sources reminds me of the sourcing standards in Wikipedia. While this may be a useful tool for resolving disputes, most named features on the map don’t need anywhere near that level of rigor. …

My goodness, this direction is not intended, on the contrary, it is intended to make it easier for the mapper. For questions like Clarification is required:
There are constant debates in my neighborhood about what is a name …
are not answered despite (or because of) an 18k-character article, then something is wrong.

My approach is: as soon as you have understood the term proper name, the tag name is easy to set for most features on the map. All that is needed is a clarification of the term.

However, this does not solve all the issues, as the name-like descriptions still cause difficulties. Because proper names often arise from descriptions, the classification " still a description" or “already a name” is not always clear. The process description of how a name can arise, from which you quoted the “independet sources”, should also contribute to understanding.

Minh_Nguyen:

… the most helpful guidance this page could provide would be about how to choose a primary proper name, if you will, from multiple candidates, and where the other proper names should go.

It’s interesting that you mention the multiple proper names. Do you often see issues with this? In my region (Austria), I have only encountered a problem with multiple proper names once. I see problems much more frequently with name=“descriptive name” (e.g. “Billa Parkplatz” / “Tesco Car Park”) and name=“common noun” (e.g. “Toilette”/“Toilet”).

Minh_Nguyen · 2024-03-24T20:22:24.059Z

Robhubi:

It’s interesting that you mention the multiple proper names. Do you often see issues with this? In my region (Austria), I have only encountered a problem with multiple proper names once. I see problems much more frequently with name=“descriptive name” (e.g. “Billa Parkplatz” / “Tesco Car Park”) and name=“common noun” (e.g. “Toilette”/“Toilet”).

Sure, I see this too. But if we aren’t careful about how we use the term “proper name”, we trade one problem for another. alt_name and official_name can also contain a proper name. The difference is that name contains the primary name among all the proper names that a feature has. It would be just as bad if we set alt_name to “Toilette”. This happens sometimes already to some extent, but it would happen more often if we remove the word “primary”, the very thing that distinguishes name from all the other name keys.

I agree that everything else on the page is redundant to the main “Names” feature page and should be moved there.

Minh_Nguyen · 2024-03-24T20:32:23.556Z

Robhubi:

My approach is: as soon as you have understood the term proper name, the tag name is easy to set for most features on the map. All that is needed is a clarification of the term.

By the way, the term “proper name” has two senses. You’ve chosen the sense in philosophy, which is very obscure compared to the sense from grammar and linguistics. In English, “proper noun” is more common, but some elementary school curriculums prefer “proper name”. This is potentially confusing for anyone who chooses the key based on a brief summary rather than your full definition. It’s even worse for native speakers of Romance languages like Spanish and French, in which the most common word for a proper noun literally means “proper name”.

Robhubi · 2024-03-29T18:08:59.169Z

Resumé of opinions on restructuring wiki page key:name

Summary of opinions from talk: key:name, blog post and the discussion here:

Contributor	Consent
GreyTK	yes
Mateusz_Konieczny	none
osmuser63783	yes
gileri	yes
Minh_Nguyen	yes

I would ask the contributors to correct me if I have interpreted their consent incorrectly.

The result is in favour of the proposed restructuring. I will incorporate the ideas put forward in this discussion into the text and put it up for discussion. I will post the link to the text here.

Minh_Nguyen · 2024-03-29T18:56:54.767Z

Are you planning to also make any changes to the main “Names” page? Some of what you plan to remove from the name page would be relevant there.

Robhubi · 2024-03-29T20:11:47.003Z

No information should be lost - so in principle yes, but as the main article “Names” is so extensive, this will be very limited.

osmuser63783 · 2024-03-30T08:50:47.267Z

It might make sense for the page for Key:name to mention that the key can contain more than one name in multilingual areas, separated by slashes or dashes. For example, streets in Brussels or international water bodies such as the Caspian Sea.

This is mentioned on the “Names” page under “Multiple names” but it’s specifically about the name tag so why not put it on the name page too.

I think there’s a misconception that name should only contain the name of a feature that is the most “correct” historically or politically, and this misconception is causing a lot of friction, see some recent discussions on what the name tag of specific features should be. (In reality I think we mostly use it for whatever is signed, and in the absence of that, for whatever most people actually call the feature)

Emphasising that name is only to be used for proper names may help discourage name=Toilets, but it could also lead to more misunderstandings where people argue about who is using the “proper” as in correct name for some object.

Robhubi · 2024-03-30T14:41:12.435Z

Please help me to understand your post, do you want to

express no agreement with the objectives of the restructuring or
make a suggestion about the text

osmuser63783 · 2024-03-30T23:16:54.464Z

I agree with your changes but I suggest that some of the stuff here, about multiple names in different languages in the name tag, (also) belongs on the Key:name page.

Robhubi · 2024-04-09T18:57:16.020Z

Thanks to all contributors. The revised text and the page for discussion of the text is here. Contributions to the text are welcome.

Minh_Nguyen · 2024-04-23T23:36:32.359Z

The proposed text states categorically that brand names are not to be placed in name=*:

Do not use it for

Brand names: “Tesco”, “Aldi” …

Are you sure this is an accurate description of the prevailing practice in OSM, or that there’s a consensus to eliminate brand names from name=* globally?

gileri · 2024-04-25T17:23:08.624Z

Agreed. I think it’s missing a qualifier, as in “Do not use it for brand name on its own. Use the complete store name.”

That would align with how most store present their names.

Mateusz_Konieczny · 2024-04-25T17:35:28.684Z

gileri:

“Do not use it for brand name on its own. Use the complete store name.”

Often such “complete” store name should go into official_name at most as noone is using full legal name or official name or marketing name. People use rather short brand name.

Sometimes even shortened version of brand name.

Minh_Nguyen · 2024-04-25T17:52:22.361Z

gileri:

That would align with how most store present their names.

From what I’ve seen, it really varies by geography, shop type, and even sometimes within a single chain.

For example, in the U.S., chain hotels make their names as verbose as possible to attract guests. An individual hotel’s name might mention not only the brand but also the brand’s parent company (“by Marriott”), the city, and any nearby attractions (“Airport/University Park”). On the other hand, chain supermarkets almost never go by anything other than the brand name. The individual store has no name, only a number that appears on a receipt or the cash register’s LED display. Some hotel and supermarket chains operate on a looser affiliation model, allowing individual locations to name themselves more uniquely. In all cases, an ordinary layperson would consider the POI to have a common name, but this may vary from common practice in other countries.

The Name Suggestion Index project, which helps ensure consistent brand and operator tagging, generally includes only the brand name in name=*, but it makes broad exceptions for some countries, POI categories, and individual brands.

Some related recent discussion:

Proposed import of All the Places data onto existing hotel POIs in the US United States

branch=* is a valid tag to use, but name=* should include branch=*. Otherwise, it’s basically impossible to reliably reconstruct the fully qualified name that many users would expect for certain POI categories like hotels. This is not purely a rendering issue; geocoders also need to be able to display a conventional, fully-qualified name. Supermarkets are a poor precedent here. Most chains merely number their stores for internal purposes; you generally only encounter the store number on a re…

gileri · 2024-04-25T18:57:22.636Z

You’re right @Mateusz_Konieczny, most people use the brand to refer to a store, that’s why the brand tag is important. However, that has no bearing on the name.

If you ask the question what is the name of this particular store, people familiar with the place will answer with it. And every public communication by the store chain will use this name too.

Mateusz_Konieczny · 2024-04-25T19:07:29.820Z

“Do not use it for brand name on its own. Use the complete store name.” advise is wrong and misleading.

gileri:

If you ask the question what is the name of this particular store, people familiar with the place will answer with it.

And in many cases it is brand name, not “complete store name”.

gileri:

And every public communication by the store chain will use this name too.

No, they often use some marketing name not actually used by people (sometimes extra words, extra signs, weird styling etc)

gileri:

You’re right @Mateusz_Konieczny, most people use the brand to refer to a store, that’s why the brand tag is important. However, that has no bearing on the name.

“has no bearing on the name” is overstating things as in many cases it is the same, and result of branding.

gileri · 2024-04-25T19:11:49.115Z

Minh_Nguyen:

On the other hand, chain supermarkets almost never go by anything other than the brand name

That does not seem to be the case in France, or in the UK, or the USA, or Italy. You get the gist. I’ve yet to find a store chain that does not distinguish publicly between their store.

The Name Suggestion Index project, which helps ensure consistent brand and operator tagging, generally includes only the brand name in name=*,

The NSI, while really useful most of the time, degrade OSM regarding the name of chain brands sadly.

gileri · 2024-04-25T19:16:58.781Z

“Do not use it for brand name on its own. Use the complete store name.” advise is wrong and misleading.

It’s not. Perhaps you like to display brands and not names of things, but you should not tag for your own preference.

And in many cases it is brand name, not “complete store name”.

You are purposely mistaking the brand and the name. People answer by convenience, and the brand is convenient when you do not need to distinguish between stores. The exact function of a name is there to distinguish between items/persons/etc. That’s why stores, persons, cities etc are given mostly unique names.

“has no bearing on the name” is overstating things as in many cases it is the same, and result of branding.

Nope, as demonstrated in my previous post.