The key “name” is one of the 10 most frequently used characteristics of objects - according to Taginfo 100 million times. It is probably also the tag with the most errors. A random sample in my neighbourhood showed an error rate of 8.4% (N=1092). Possible reasons:

1. lack of knowledge
2. misunderstanding
3. tag missing

The proposal relates to point 2, possible misunderstandings regarding the meaning of the “name” tag.

Current Wiki structure

The main article names lists 14 different keys of the proper name, differentiates them from each other and from non-proper names and gives many examples. The article is quite extensive with 29k characters.

Of the 14 keys, 5 keys do not have their own wiki page: int_name, loc_name, nat_name, reg_name and nickname.

The article on the key name is similar to the main article names, only somewhat shorter. It is still quite extensive with 18k characters. All other articles are short.

Issues Main article “names”

Readability.

The text is very extensive and therefore requires perseverance. However, it deals with all aspects of name keys in detail and consistently. Many examples illustrate the basic idea.

Issues key:name

Readability, redundancy, clarity.

The text for the key name is very long at 18k characters, the essentials are lost in the sea of words. Much of it is a repetition of information that is already available elsewhere:

• The “values” section is almost completely contained in the main article.
• The “Variants” table is already completely contained in the main article.
• The table of language subkeys covers more than 3 screen pages and is also fully covered on the “Multilingual names” page.
• The sections “Road names” and “Additional data” are also already included in the main article. Only the sentence with “strapline” is supplementary.

In addition to the high redundancy, the text is also blurred. The core - the proper name - is not mentioned at all. The explanations lead to problematic statements.

An example. Quote:

“sources of primary names: The most prominent name on a sign posted on the feature itself, especially for a feature in the built environment”

So this building should be tagged with name=Toaletter?

(zoom)

Clearly wrong, as it contradicts the main article.

A second example. Quote:

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.

This statement is nowhere to be found in the main article. The wording is also ambiguous, are we tagging according to reality or according to the wishes of the data consumer? The latter seems to apply here:

(zoom)

The data consumer may be happy with the name “Green Walk (Easy Access)”, but it is not a name in the sense of the main article.

Another example. Quote:

This key is set to the primary name of the feature in the real world.

I read it like this: “primary name is the most commonly used name for that feature”. “primary” here denotes an order if there are several names. However, it says nothing about which names are involved. Names are multifaceted: class name, collective name, mass name, proper name … which name is meant?

The sentence should read: This key is set to the proper name of the feature in the real world. Or also: This key is set to the primary proper name of the feature in the real world.

Name “Toaletter” in the example above is then clearly excluded as a class name for the name key. In addition to class names, name-like descriptions are often misunderstood as proper nouns. No wonder, really, if the proper name is not defined as a term.

The term “primary name” is not used anywhere in the main article. The entire main article revolves around the term proper name, but it is only used explicitly a few times. It is strange why it remains completely unmentioned as a central term in the entire key:name article.

Did the authors understand the name as a synonym for the proper name? Or have I lost my way in the labyrinth of foreign language, everyday usage, grammar and linguistic philosophy?

One thing is for sure: I’m not the only one. The many errors in tag names scattered around the world are a clear indication.

Goal

Clarity.

• Focus article key:name on the essentials, maximum text volume 1 to 2 screen pages
• Intensive integration of the main article by means of references
• Pay attention to translatability

Here is a text proposal as a starting point.

Non-goal

Change to the scope of meaning of the key name, neither restricting nor expanding. Reference is the main article names.

… and you?

What is your opinion: do you think the proposed restructuring makes sense?