Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links (Kevin Kenny)

So many conversations at once; this list-digest medium proves limiting at times, even often. Helpful old-fashioned aids here might be sketch boards where small-group (two, three people?) sub-projects can spin out and a main thread group where someone explains what s/he sees going on and how we

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 3:46 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 14:33 Richard Welty wrote: > >> On 8/24/18 3:15 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: >> > This is a criticism I've had about the Standard renderer for a while >> > now. Andy Allan's rendering refs from relations. Osmand is

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 14:33 Richard Welty wrote: > On 8/24/18 3:15 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > This is a criticism I've had about the Standard renderer for a while > > now. Andy Allan's rendering refs from relations. Osmand is rendering > > refs from relations. Magic Earth is rendering refs

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

On Aug 24, 2018, at 11:41 AM, Evin Fairchild wrote: > Hey, I totally agree that we need to fix the rendering so that the renderer > will show ref tags on route relations. But until then, it's impractical to > expect people to avoid putting the ref tags on the ways. Evin, we agree to disagree

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

On 8/24/18 3:15 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > This is a criticism I've had about the Standard renderer for a while > now.  Andy Allan's rendering refs from relations.  Osmand is rendering > refs from relations.  Magic Earth is rendering refs from relations.  > Pretty sure Mapbox and Rand McNally are

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 13:41 Evin Fairchild wrote: > Anyway, to get back on topic, I don't agree with tagging the ref tags on > link roads, as long as it's part of the route relation. I have seen > instances, though, where people tag what should be a motorway link as a > motorway when a route

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

This is a criticism I've had about the Standard renderer for a while now. Andy Allan's rendering refs from relations. Osmand is rendering refs from relations. Magic Earth is rendering refs from relations. Pretty sure Mapbox and Rand McNally are as well. On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 12:03 Evin

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

Hey, I totally agree that we need to fix the rendering so that the renderer will show ref tags on route relations. But until then, it's impractical to expect people to avoid putting the ref tags on the ways. I do agree with not tagging for the renderer, but I was merely pointing out that it's

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

Agree with that, Evin. Unfortunately I think there are still quite a few countries where route relations are not as widely used / accepted (I remember the UK bring among them? Perhaps someone can do an overpass query to visualize) so unless we get everyone on board with them we're likely stuck

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

The only way you can get people to stop putting reg tags on ways and only put them on relations is if the renderer actually rendered reg tags from relations. Currently it doesn't do this, so it's impractical for people to do what you're suggesting. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, don't tag for the

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

The ref=* tag on ways is already 100% redundant if the way is already a part of the appropriate route relations and should be phased out so ref can be used to actually describe the way's ref, where applicable. Also, can we kill this dinosaur entirely already? Route relations have been a widely

[Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

Hey everyone! We're looking for your opinion on the existence of ref tags on links - should it be there? Is it redundant if the link is already in a route relation that has the ref tag? We've created a Github ticket to let us

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

* James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com [2013-06-22 20:04 -0400]: Yep, here's picture proof that I personally took a few years ago of a Future I-26 shield: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg Alright. I'll add Future Interstate shields to my

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

How about... network=US:I modifier=Future On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: * James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com [2013-06-22 20:04 -0400]: Yep, here's picture proof that I personally took a few years ago of a Future I-26 shield:

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

* James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com [2013-06-22 07:22 -0400]: I do hope that the render will avoid using the Super relations. My rendering doesn't use super relations (mostly[0]), because it doesn't need to; the per-state relations contain all of the tags needed for it to get the right

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 15:28:12 -0400 From: phi...@pobox.com To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] ref tags * James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com [2013-06-22 07:22 -0400]: the segment of I-26 between I-240 and Exit #9 is still considered to be a Future Interstate

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

Check the Farm-to-market page on Wikipedia. On Jun 19, 2013 11:00 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote: Does the Wikipedia bit have a cited source? I can understand that being true; I just want to verify. The Texas Highway Designation Files list them as two separate types. On Jun 19,

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

I checked the Wikipedia page and couldn't find anything. Could you do me a favor and point me to the part of the article you're referring to, and/or the cited source? I'd rather solve this without more mailing list drama, if possible. On Jun 20, 2013 9:06 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

Also, even if it were the case that they were the same network, it makes sense to keep them separate because that is how the shield renderer determines which shield to put on the road. Tagging for the renderer, grumble grumble. On Jun 20, 2013 9:23 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

* Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com [2013-06-20 09:26 -0700]: Also, even if it were the case that they were the same network, it makes sense to keep them separate because that is how the shield renderer determines which shield to put on the road. My shield renderer is pretty flexible. I can

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:15:02 -0400 From: phi...@pobox.com To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] ref tags * Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com [2013-06-20 09:26 -0700]: Also, even if it were the case that they were the same network, it makes sense to keep them

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/fmfacts.htm Texas refers to the network as Farm/Ranch to Market or Farm to Market, except Ranch Road 1 and NASA Road 1 (both of which are part of single-route networks, because Texas). The last fact I would correct to say currently since Oklahoma formerly had

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

Martijn van Exel m at rtijn.org writes: Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for some states, there are no State Route relation pages. (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also) NE2 finished Ohio's route relations at such speed

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for some states, there are no State Route relation pages. ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also ) I'm

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

Yeah, I'm guessing interstates and US routes are mostly done. The things that might be missing is bannered routes (truck, business, etc). I suspect that state highways are going to be a patchwork. I'm pretty sure I've got most of the major and a good number of minor Kansas highways done. This wiki

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

Curious if you guys are using US:KS for the network, which would fit the pattern or not? I ask because on the way's ref tags, some people are correctly using KS, but others are just using K. On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, I'm guessing

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

Following up on this as a reminder, let's get together at 5PM Pacific / 8PM Eastern to see how we can make this happen. Again, I am willing to put in time, but I will need help. I prefer a Google hangout but IRC works for me as well. On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Martijn van Exel

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

Yes, the relations are all tagged correctly with network=US:KS. As for the ref on the ways, anything I've touched is KS. There was another user who did a bunch as K-xx for a while but I think I convinced him that we should go with KS and put K-xx in a loc_ref tag or something like that. Toby On

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

Wondering if there may be a better way to collaborate on route maintenance, a way to see if routes are being maintained / created per area, and by whom... Oh wait, that would be the groups feature we are working on[1]. [1] https://github.com/osmlab/datadashboard/issues/1 and

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

Fortunately most of Texas has been done, but unfortunately the FM/RM roads haven't been completed and there are quite a lot of them. I made a Mapcraft to help add relations to them all: http://mapcraft.nanodesu.ru/pie/269 I've made a little progress in the Texas Panhandle but we definitely need

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

Curious if the network for RM and FM is consistently US:TX:FM for both, since they're both part of the same network. On Jun 19, 2013 10:52 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote: Fortunately most of Texas has been done, but unfortunately the FM/RM roads haven't been completed and there

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: Following up on this as a reminder, let's get together at 5PM Pacific / 8PM Eastern to see how we can make this happen. Again, I am willing to put in time, but I will need help. I prefer a Google hangout but IRC works for

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

I've been doing a lot of work on the FM and RM roads already.  The RM's should all be done already.  The FM roads are done for everything west of I-35, except for the Panhandle, where I was just straightening and not adding relations.   Anything I've worked on Everything is done generally north

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

It's US:TX:FM for FM roads, and US:TX:RM for RM roads. There may be little to no overlap between RM and FM, and they may serve the same purpose, but I see no need to go through them all and change all of them to one network. They are different networks according to the state of Texas. On Jun 19,

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

I'm pretty confident (but with G+ you never know) that this is the event link: https://plus.google.com/events/casn33o1v25faad4jvocqdu1jg4 Info on the actual hangout link should appear there shortly before we start. Martijn On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

TxDOT is cited in Wikipedia as documenting them as being the same network (farm to market), and no RM and FM have the same number. They just change the sign to RM when the route primarily passes through ranches instead of farms. According to TxDOT, there is exactly one Ranch Road, being RR 1,

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

Does the Wikipedia bit have a cited source? I can understand that being true; I just want to verify. The Texas Highway Designation Files list them as two separate types. On Jun 19, 2013 8:25 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: TxDOT is cited in Wikipedia as documenting them as being the

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

Why is the US local chapter not running a tile server that renders shields and concurrencies? The tagging has been stable forever. The code has been working for years. Even a hacked demo ( now offline) was running for years before that. Stop waiting for the London tile server to give a

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Why is the US local chapter not running a tile server that renders shields and concurrencies? The tagging has been stable forever. The code has been working for years. Even a hacked demo ( now offline) was running for

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

Richard - we were discussing this topic during the mappy hour yesterday and came to the same conclusion! We should have a shields style. What needs to be done? I am willing to put in time but can't connect all the dots myself. I will loop in Ian and see if we can get this running. On Tue, Jun

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

Oh there you are Ian :) Well I guess I am stepping up but I will need help! On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: Richard - we were discussing this topic during the mappy hour yesterday and came to the same conclusion! We should have a shields style. What

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

* Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com [2013-06-18 08:07 -0500]: Because no one's stepped up to do it! Okay, I should probably put my toes in here. I can spend this weekend cleaning up my code (for http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/ ) and maybe try to get it running on the US server, if there's

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

* Jason Remillard remillard.ja...@gmail.com [2013-06-17 22:19 -0400]: If the way is part of relation that has a ref, and the way itself does not have a ref, then the relation ref should propagate to the way. Note that the conventions for ref tags are different for relations and ways. A way

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

I did spend some time trying to set up Phil's code myself for eventual deployment to the osm-us server. I got a good chunk of the way there but ran into some problems. I'll see if I can put some more time into it now that I'm home again. Toby On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Richard Weait

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

Perhaps we can get together on IRC sometime soon and see what would need to be done. I can't make tonight but tomorrow early evening (like, 6PM MDT) would work. Ian, Phil, Toby, are you around then? On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote: I did spend some

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

* Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org [2013-06-18 10:40 -0600]: Perhaps we can get together on IRC sometime soon and see what would need to be done. I can't make tonight but tomorrow early evening (like, 6PM MDT) would work. Ian, Phil, Toby, are you around then? That's 8pm for me, which might

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

Great. I am just catching up on SOTM US talks and watching yours. Enjoying it a lot! On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: * Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org [2013-06-18 10:40 -0600]: Perhaps we can get together on IRC sometime soon and see what would need to

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

A related question - do we have a clear idea of route relation completeness in the US? Looking at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_Relations This look pretty well organized, but I know how wikis can

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

On 6/18/2013 1:21 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: This look pretty well organized, but I know how wikis can be deceiving like that. Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for some states, there are no State Route relation pages.

[Talk-us] ref tags

Hi all, I wanted to get an opinion on the right place for 'ref' tags on numbered routes. From what I understand, osm2pgsql and the downstream rendering process uses the ref tags on the way object to render highway 'shields'. The following example corroborates this. Consider this (long) way:

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

Hi, If the way is part of relation that has a ref, and the way itself does not have a ref, then the relation ref should propagate to the way. If the way has a ref, then that is what should be used regardless if its in a relation or not. Would that break anybody? Thanks Jason. On Mon, Jun 17,

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

On 6/17/13 10:19 PM, Jason Remillard wrote: Hi, If the way is part of relation that has a ref, and the way itself does not have a ref, then the relation ref should propagate to the way. If the way has a ref, then that is what should be used regardless if its in a relation or not. Would that

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

Kind of looking forward to that, too, since it would allow more accurately mapping situations like Oregon, where State Highways are the original numbers used on trailblazers and what ODOT refers to roads it's roadways as, as opposed to the State Routes that usually traverse multiple state

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

Thank you, Paul: not only do I stand corrected, I am glad to be corrected (improved, really) in this way. (I did know, in fact, the number to be greater than fifty something.) I only planted the seed, and you more fully grew the tree of this particular truth. I, too, am not sure of a more

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

On 2/13/2013 6:27 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: Considering that there's nearly 40 in the area within relation 161645 (Oklahoma), I'd honestly be surprised if there aren't at least 50-something just within states starting with O. AFAIK, all of the reservations in Oklahoma were allotted before

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

Not reservations as such, but there are tribal boundaries that last to this day. Osage County/Nation isn't the only one. Heck, just drive around Tulsa, and you'll see Entering the Cherokee/Muscogee (Creek)/Osage Nation signs bisecting the city into thirds centered roughly at the 244/412/51/LL/64

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

On 2013-02-11 11:30 AM, Chris Lawrence wrote: I'd actually been kicking around proposing a bulk edit of ref=* tags to conform them with the quasi-standard of two-letter USPS state prefix + space + route number (+ one-char suffix)?(+ space + any long modifiers) but didn't want things to devolve

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:18 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: [...] What this means is that ref tags (used at county, state and national levels) are and should be human readable, and route relations are a more machine parsable data structure for logically assembling together the

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 1:18 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: In other words, New York is just as sovereign as is New Zealand, South Dakota is as much a nation-state as South Korea. I am not an attorney, but I can read. This makes for 51 independent jurisdictions: the fifty

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

On 2013-02-12 11:18 AM, stevea wrote: The SR plague is well-named. Virtually nobody in California colloquially says State Route, except the California Highway Patrol filling out tickets and Caltrans -- our California DOT -- on highway engineering blueprints. I have (slowly) begun to back out

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Someone with local knowledge might want to look over the ref=* tags in Florida, a lot seem to be missing the context that let you know what network they're a part of. I'd actually been kicking around proposing a bulk

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

The SR and SH designations were mostly put in by NE2, IIRC. Go figure. I'm personally okay with this mass edit, but expect a lot of hate mail from NE2. On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Someone with local knowledge might want to look over the ref=* tags in

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote: The SR and SH designations were mostly put in by NE2, IIRC. Go figure. I'm personally okay with this mass edit, but expect a lot of hate mail from NE2. FWIW I did get a pair of emails from NE2 that says, in part, he

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Chris Lawrence lordsu...@gmail.com wrote: He does reiterate the point it would lead to long ref tags that would conflict with Mapnik's limitations. He also argues that it would make the Mapnik rendering erroneous Tagging for the renderer. As far as the blade

[Talk-us] ref tags

Someone with local knowledge might want to look over the ref=* tags in Florida, a lot seem to be missing the context that let you know what network they're a part of. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

Not sure if they read these, but https://github.com/MapQuest/MapQuest-Mapnik-Style/issues On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 8:25 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.comwrote: Anyways, we really need to get MapQuest to render by relations (where available on a way) and only using a way ref's tags when

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:25 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote: Anyways, we really need to get MapQuest to render by relations ??? Wait for MapQuest? Why? Why aren't you rendering your own and sending them patches? You can render a couple of small states on any old laptop. Fix

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

So it's clear from the responses thatthere are differing needs here: Due to regional differences, displaying the two-letter USPS code in the shield is not necessarily desirable. For example, there are states where "SR" is more easily understood. At the conceptual level, the same string should not

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Craig Hinners cr...@hinnerspace.com wrote: Of course, it would be desirable to have consensus on the syntax of the conceptual-level tag, be it highway:network:us:fl=123, or highway:network=us:fl:123, or highway=fl:123, but that's a diversion from the crux of the

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote: route relations. The ref=* tag on ways right now is mostly tagging for the renderer because current renderers don't use route relations. Richard Weait has done some work on this: http://weait.com/content/badges-badges

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

On 4/9/2011 8:41 AM, Craig Hinners wrote: * At the conceptual level, the same string should not be used to represent the networks of multiple states, and some state-unique ID, be it the USPS two-letter abbreviation or otherwise, is needed. Why? We use the same prefixes for many

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

On 4/9/2011 10:21 AM, Toby Murray wrote: This explicitly split out network information should be present in route relations. The ref=* tag on ways right now is mostly tagging for the renderer because current renderers don't use route relations. And tagging for redundancy, since relations break

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

On 04/08/2011 01:00 PM, James Mast wrote: I just thought I would throw this out there so this can be settled once and for all. Which ref tag setup do you think should be used for State Highways on ways (not relations)? PA-44 or 44. The reason I'm asking is because I've seen several people

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

On 04/08/2011 02:03 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: I think ref=OK 20;AR 42 (or equally ref=AR 42;OK 20) is the appropriate tag there. Though a ref with two different states involved is fairly rare, about the only spot I can think of where that would apply offhand would be WA 500 if they ever start

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

On 04/08/2011 03:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 4/8/2011 3:58 PM, Richard Welty wrote: i know NE2 likes to make the prefix go away for state ref tags For Florida, yes, since that's the statewide standard. For other states, I usually don't tag without a prefix. I certainly don't make it go

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

On 04/08/2011 02:11 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote: On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 02:03:25PM -0500, Nathan Mills wrote: On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:11:49 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 4/8/2011 2:00 PM, James Mast wrote: I just thought I would throw this out there so this can be settled once and for

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

On 04/08/2011 07:16 PM, Toby Murray wrote: Yeah... consensus would be great but seems to be rather elusive. Here is a case in point. Another mapper has been tagging ways on Kansas highways as K-xx which is how people usually pronounce it. Street signs usually just have the number inside of

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

On 04/09/2011 07:41 AM, Craig Hinners wrote: So it's clear from the responses that there are differing needs here: * Due to regional differences, displaying the two-letter USPS code in the shield is not necessarily desirable. For example, there are states where SR is more

[Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

I just thought I would throw this out there so this can be settled once and for all. Which ref tag setup do you think should be used for State Highways on ways (not relations)? PA-44 or 44. The reason I'm asking is because I've seen several people put the state abbreviation in the ref field

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

On 4/8/2011 2:00 PM, James Mast wrote: I just thought I would throw this out there so this can be settled once and for all. Which ref tag setup do you think should be used for State Highways on ways (not relations)? PA-44 or 44. There's a third way: use the correct abbreviation. So Florida, if a

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:11:49 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 4/8/2011 2:00 PM, James Mast wrote: I just thought I would throw this out there so this can be settled once and for all. Which ref tag setup do you think should be used for State Highways on ways (not relations)? PA-44 or 44.

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 02:03:25PM -0500, Nathan Mills wrote: On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:11:49 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 4/8/2011 2:00 PM, James Mast wrote: I just thought I would throw this out there so this can be settled once and for all. Which ref tag setup do you think should be used

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

On 4/8/2011 3:03 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: The SR naming leads to ambiguity as to which state's route number is being referenced. Just like name=Main Street leads to ambiguity as to which city's main street it is. I understand the overlap between 20 and 42, but here the solution is to make

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

On 4/8/11 3:35 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: Shouldn't the ref tag be an unambiguous reference to a given road in a route network? Clearly, one should not put name=MI XX on a Michigan state route (unless there is a road sign reading MI XX), but ref=MI XX provides said unambiguous reference and can

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

On 4/8/2011 3:58 PM, Richard Welty wrote: i know NE2 likes to make the prefix go away for state ref tags For Florida, yes, since that's the statewide standard. For other states, I usually don't tag without a prefix. I certainly don't make it go away en masse.

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

On 4/8/11 4:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 4/8/2011 3:58 PM, Richard Welty wrote: i know NE2 likes to make the prefix go away for state ref tags For Florida, yes, since that's the statewide standard. For other states, I usually don't tag without a prefix. I certainly don't make it go

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

On 4/8/11 4:26 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 4/8/2011 4:18 PM, Richard Welty wrote: On 4/8/11 4:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 4/8/2011 3:58 PM, Richard Welty wrote: i know NE2 likes to make the prefix go away for state ref tags For Florida, yes, since that's the statewide standard. For

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

On 4/8/2011 4:46 PM, Richard Welty wrote: On 4/8/11 4:26 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Do you have an example of that outside my first few months of editing? this changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5223229 from 7/2010, in which the ref tag for

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

On 4/8/11 4:50 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 4/8/2011 4:46 PM, Richard Welty wrote: On 4/8/11 4:26 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Do you have an example of that outside my first few months of editing? this changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5223229 from 7/2010, in which

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

Yeah... consensus would be great but seems to be rather elusive. Here is a case in point. Another mapper has been tagging ways on Kansas highways as K-xx which is how people usually pronounce it. Street signs usually just have the number inside of the sunflower logo without any kind of lettering