Ok, so both are easy. What are the remaining arguments for making up a ”name but not name” tag for one specific kind of way?
I’m not sure why you would characterize street:name as meaning “name but not a name”. It’s just as much a name as any of the other many different keys we use for names. It just means specifically the street name in the same way bridge:name and tunnel:name are for bridge names and tunnel names specifically. It’s also not used just for one specific kind of way. Although it was originally conceived for sidewalks, it is now also being used on streetside parking objects to specify the street they are a part of.
My argument for street:name on sidewalks is this:
- A street name represents a whole street corridor, not specifically the carriageway part of the street, the sidewalk part of the street, or any other part.
nameis for the primary name of the tagged feature. Thusname={Street Name}belongs on an object that represents the street as a whole.- A sidewalk way represents the sidewalk part of the street, not the street as a whole, thus a different tag meaning “this is the name of the street this object is a part of” makes sense.
street:name={Street Name}fits that meaning nicely.
1 Like
As far as I can see, the same argument applies to side carriageways or secondary carriageways intended for cars (for example).
Thus, I am looking forward to *:name being adopted by data users, so that it can be suggested to retag such secondary carriageways to use *:name rather than name.
4 Likes
If street relations aren’t happening, why would we need to use tags that only make sense in street relations? Especially when the other ways this would apply to are not using those tags.
Indeed. Plus @ezekielf makes a pretty good point for using street-relations…
I’d just like to see sensible implementations of that…
It’s sort-of doable (with major caveats) in a number of common toolchains, but it’d be a major PITA (“want to consume OSM data? First you need to stand on one leg and play Yakety Sax really fast on the penny whistle”).
4 Likes
So, after long and laborious study, I finally figured who landed us in this mess.
2 Likes
It seems that only the Turkish delegation clearly envisaged the need for tagging clarity in OpenStreetMap in 1949 (3:12).
Less relevant to this thread, but I enjoyed the reference to my native Ireland (6:52 to 7:20). I think it is now clear that in all matters relating to road signs, Ireland is Right and everybody else is Wrong. Obviously this means that all OSM tags relating to road and foot traffic and access should be considered to default to their value in (the Republic of) Ireland. Any deviation from Irish road rules will be considered a local peculiarity to be tagged explicitly. That should cleanly resolve several ongoing threads in this forum.
3 Likes
Cliff’s Notes?
If that means “summary please”, it turns out that at the Vienna conference, Turkey wanted to explicitly define “road” to mean everything from carriageway to ditches and everything in between, but it seems that it didn’t make it into the final convention…
1 Like
I mean, anybody could have done the same thing by replying to the thread by repeatedly tapping the center autocomplete on their mobile phone’s screen until it hit the end of a sentence…
1 Like