Automatically remove obvious descriptive names for viewpoints (obvious cases only, not all suspect objects)

There are object types where mappers relatively often add invalid name tag that repeats object type, and it is obvious enough that can be fixed remotely.

I was doing it with some objects, and in some cases it is often combined with very problematic tagging nearby (can link some queries if anyone wants).

But for some objects use of obvious descriptive names is quite popular, to the point that manual fixing cannot keep up AND it is possible to fix it with a bot edit AND other tagging is typically fine. Sometimes there are clusters of other objects with descriptive names, but these can be found independently.

And yes “Viewpoint” can be signed but it does not make it a name, like “Viewpoint, entry 5 euro” is not a name either. Or “Viewpoint, no wheelchair access”.

Note Is name=Toilet even theorethically valid for amenity=toilets? where it was discussed

I propose to run automated cleanup for viewpoints. It would remove name=viewpoint (and name=Viewpoint and name=VIEWPOINT) from objects tagged only as viewpoints.

Note that this relies on assumption that object tagged like

  • tourism=viewpoint
  • name=Viewpoint

is always case of misusing name tag.

Objects which carry unexpected tags or tags not typical for viewpoints, or note/fixme tags will be skipped. So for example

  • tourism=viewpoint
  • amenity=restaurant
  • name=Viewpoint

well not be touched. In theoretical case of restaurant named “Viewpoint” which is also viewpoint, such object will not be modified at all. So

  • tourism=viewpoint
  • waterway=waterfall
  • name=Viewpoint


  • tourism=viewpoint
  • name=Viewpoint
  • note=Actually named “Viewpoint”

would not be edited either.

(Though I do not expect last case to be ever validly tagged…)

Obviously objects with just


would not be edited in this edit.

  • tourism=viewpoint
  • fee=yes
  • name=VIEWPOINT

would be edited. Similarly with other that are expected attributes of viewpoints.

Bot edit would be worldwide, with edits split in parts. Edits would be repeated in future.

Note: as required by automated edits code of conduct a bot proposal will be also posted on talk mailing list

Comments welcome - both if you see problems with this edit and if you support it (though upvoting also works I guess)

9 posts - 5 participants

Read full topic

Ce sujet de discussion accompagne la publication sur