Talk:Key:seamark:name

Is there any justification to reinvent and duplicate tag name?

For example - is there any good reason to use "seamark:name=5N" instead of "name=5N"? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I've verified that neither OpenSeaMap nor JOSM's OpenSeaMap display seamark:name=*, not even when name=* is missing. Also, iD does not support it. 4 out of the 60 OpenSeaMap presets for JOSM use seamark:name=* only, all others (the vast majority) use name=* only. So, seamark:name=* is probably an ancient leftover that could be moved to other name tags such as official_name=* to facilitate geocoding using standard tools such as Nominatim.

I think "5N" is probably a ref=* code, not a name. However, OpenSeaMap does not display ref=*, nor does the standard layer for unnamed elements that can be combined with sea marks (eg. sea lights and man_made=lighthouse). I think they should support it, but the combination is not very common. In my area near  Lagoa dos Patos, whenever a sea mark has both a name and a reference code, official nautical maps represent it in the format "Name (code)", and when there's only a reference code, it's only "(code)".

Also in my area, ref=* in sea marks seems to represent a database record identifier. If that's right, it should be moved into a more specific tag identifying the data source, as is usually done with other kinds of data imports in OSM. Also, seamark:name=* is being used for the name displayed in official nautical maps, while name=* is a shortened, more standardized version of it that fits nicely into OpenSeaMap.--Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)