On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:15 PM Tod Fitch wrote:
> In my area there seems to be a mix of how the US Forest Service route
> numbers are tagged on roads and trails. The main variations seem to be:
>
> name=“Forest Route 9N24”
> name=“FR 9N24”
> alt_name=“Forest Route 9N24”
> alt_name=“FR 9N24”
> ref=“FR 9N24”
> ref=“9N24”
>
Well, name should only be the name. So the first four are wrong, refs are
not names.
> Things I’ve seen in the wiki that might pertain cover “National Forest
> Trails” [1] which seems to want a tag of “route_no” or “trail_no”. That
> just seems wrong.
>
> And in the United States roads tagging [2] which seems to prefer tagging
> like:
>
> ref=“NFR 9N24”
>
> Which I don’t recall seeing in my area.
>
> What should the preferred tagging be? My inclination would be to migrate
> the tagging in my area toward that listed on the US road tagging page (e.g.
> ref=“NFR 9N24”) even though my preference (for printed map display
> purposes) would be to simply use ref=“9N24”.
>
I'd go with ref=NF 9N24 and strongly consider making a route relation for
it. Ideally, this would all be moot and it'd just be a refless, nameless
way with the route being on the relation alone (same could be said of
roads) but for some reason people don't want to kill the dinosaur on that
still.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
