I’m always reluctant to criticize someone’s command of language, but the proposal is full of vague, unclear or poorly worded statements. And I’m not criticizing your English grammar as such, but rather sloppy writing, which is :
As a rule, it is very simple: the name is signposted and is also used as such by the locals. If several names exist for a feature, the tag name is set to the primary respectively the most common name. There is a rich selection of name variants for the other names:
“Name” is used in at least three senses in the above paragraph, including vague “as such”, but inconsistently. The first name is italicized (as if it is a word-as-word), but then it is used in the normal sense of “name”. You might have used a specialized term such as “primary name” to denote the meaning we usually understand as the contents of name=* key. Contrast this with the current, rather clear, wording in Key:name:
As a rule of thumb, the primary name would be the most obvious name of the feature, the one that end users expect data consumers to expose in a label or other interface element. Here are the usual sources of primary names:…
Further on:
Descriptive names such as “Tesco Car Park” or “Brandon Town Map” are not usually names.
What’s the distinction between a “descriptive name” and a “name”? I can’t decipher what “Brandon Town Map” was meant to denote – why not use something more common instead?
When to use
This whole section is meandering, again with sloppy terminology:
Only use it for the primary name. Do not use it for
Common names: “Football Pitch”, “Toilet” …
Yeah, I get the intent, but you now poison the term “common name” – “McDonald’s” is the common name for the fast food restaurant around your corner; however, “toilet” is rather a description or definition of the otherwise unnamed object, and so on…
So, sorry, but I think that the proposal is far from being an acceptable replacement for the current Key:name page. Instead, I think we’d be better off by cleaning up the page from junk accrued during years of uncontrolled editing – I’d start with pruning useless section "All documented suffixed subkeys: ", and continuing with “Road names”, “Additional data” and “Editors”, of very low redeeming value.
