Talk:Key:branch
??
How this tag is supposed to be used? On taginfo I see things that look like brand=* or is_in=*. Can someone give example of a valid use? Note that name goes into name=* and brand into brand=* Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Mateusz Konieczny: This proposal says it may be redundant to name=* but complementary to brand=*. Maybe the idea is that name=* = brand=* + branch=*? – Minh Nguyễn 💬 20:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Mateusz Konieczny: The idea is that branch=* should hold the location of the shop (or whatever it is). The websites of many fast food chains for example lists their restaurants as "brandname location" (to be able to tell them apart) and many OSM contributors consequently use that (example: 5304778597
5304778597). Other contributors have disagreed with that practice, argueing that "brandname location" are really "internal" (to the chains) names only and that name=* should generally hold only "brandname" or what is listed on signs outside the individual restaurants (normally only "brandname"). The branch tag was invented as an attempt at a compromise for use when generating lists of POI's from OSM data, since some applications generate very simple lists only, which makes it impossible to tell restaurants of the same chain apart unless "location" is included in the name. The hope was that those applications could be changed to use name=* + branch=* to generate lists with names that could be told apart. Example of supermarket using it: 105992912
105992912 --Hjart (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks! Now I understand its purpose. Are you maybe interested in adding this info to article itself? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Mateusz Konieczny: The idea is that branch=* should hold the location of the shop (or whatever it is). The websites of many fast food chains for example lists their restaurants as "brandname location" (to be able to tell them apart) and many OSM contributors consequently use that (example: 5304778597
Irregular Usage
I use this to indicate that it is part of a theme park and similar (such as a cinema with a name that you can't tell is in Legoland) by using for example "inside Legoland". Is there a problem with this? --Floridaeditor (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Historic note: You should use eg access=customers first. branch=* should be what's used on their websites as much as possible. In any case, you shouldn't add "inside" unless it's used officially.
—— Kovposch (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Application?
If applications use name=* + branch=* and for the Hotel Barceló Hamburg in Examples, will the apps show "Hotel Barceló Hamburg (Hamburg)"? this seems weird, brand=* + branch=* is more acceptable. --Mahajana (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- A tourism=hotel is named as such. Applications shouldn't render branch=* on them, or when the name=* is different from brand=* .
—— Kovposch (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC) - I would suggest that app developers only use 'brand=*+branch=*' instead of name=* when both brand=* and branch=* are present. --快乐的老鼠宝宝 (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Name should not include branch in most cases
As far as I am aware the name of an object should not include the branch name. As adding branch to the name violates the name is only the name principle. Any added signed branch is usually in a different font, indicating it should not be included in the name tag.