Add field bridge:name=* and tunnel:name=*

[SteveLz]

Wiki:
bridge:name taginfo
tunnel:name taginfo
These fields are used to record the names of bridges and tunnels on highways, railways, and waterways. Many mappers write the names of bridges and tunnels on the road names because they do not see these field.

[github-actions]

🍱 You can preview the tagging presets of this pull request here.

[tordans]

@SteveLz can you please add more context to your PR following the PR template that is drafted in https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/pull/1239/files
Thanks

[matkoniecz]

No, please please no.

bridge:name is not a good tagging, bridge name should go on man_made=bridge object in name key rather than some unusual tags that is just pointless complexity

[SteveLz]

• We may need to be consistent with the bridge:ref that already exists in the id-tagging-schema.
• The area of ​​a tunnel is difficult to verify, and it is more common for mappers to use tunnel:name instead of drawing an area of ​​indeterminate shape.
• Compared to writing the names of bridges and tunnels in bridge:name and tunnel:name, it is even more unacceptable to change the name of highways, railways, and waterways to bridges and tunnels. We need to remind people to use man_made=bridge instead of rejecting the tag.

unusual tags

Does this mean that the number of named man_made=bridge is slightly less than bridge:name?

pointless complexity

For places where the bridge lines have not yet been fully identified and the railways have not yet been fully double-tracked, mapping the bridge area is indeed a labor-intensive micro-mapping. This is again difficult to accomplish for places where up-to-date imagery is not yet available.

[matkoniecz]

The area of ​​a tunnel is difficult to verify, and it is more common for mappers to use tunnel:name instead of drawing an area of ​​indeterminate shape.

note that I have not commented at all about tunnel:name

[matkoniecz]

Does this mean that the number of named man_made=bridge is slightly less than bridge:name?

1. number of objects where their name is tagged on another object rather in name tag is low compared to usage of name tag in general

2. note that bridge:name is counted multiple times in many cases for a single bridge

[1ec5]

bridge:name is not a good tagging, bridge name should go on man_made=bridge object in name key rather than some unusual tags that is just pointless complexity

These tagging styles aren’t mutually exclusive, are they? I’ve often tagged both since the redundancy didn’t seem to be that harmful.

For what it’s worth, #215 would also mitigate some of the tendency to overload name=*. (Hopefully you don’t look at the date on that PR and despair for this PR’s prospects. 😬)

[tyrasd]

I would say, that even though the mapping of bridges as separate objects can be considered the "state of the art" mapping technique, the bridge:name tag is still used often enough to warrant to be represented in the tagging schema (at the very least to make it easy to move the name to it's own feature when newly drawing a bridge's polygon).

@SteveLz what's missing in this PR is the inclusion of the new fields in the respective (road and railway ) presets. I would prefer to include bridge:name only as an optional ("moreFields") field, while tunnel:name might make sense to be included in the list of regular fields.

[tyrasd]

Sorry for the delay. Let's queue this for the release after the next (v6.11): there's some new strings to translate and some minor adjustments to be implemented in iD first

[matkoniecz]

These tagging styles aren’t mutually exclusive, are they? I’ve often tagged both since the redundancy didn’t seem to be that harmful.

They are not exclusive, but that does not seems to be a tagging scheme worth encouraging

We may need to be consistent with the bridge:ref that already exists in the id-tagging-schema.

I would support its removal