Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9. May 2018, at 10:38, Erkin Alp Güney  wrote:
> 
> It can also be generalised to railways. railway=rail where road_level
> corresponds to
> 
> 0=high speed railroad (vmax>250km/h, no level crossings, fully


-1, it is a bad idea to use a tag named road_level to classify railways. A road 
is a road, a railroad is not a road.

For example the OECD defines a road as "a line of communication (travelled way) 
using a stabilized base other than rails or air strips open to public traffic, 
primarily for the use of road motor vehicles running on their own wheels," 


cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Erkin Alp Güney]

> Road level sounds to me like how high it is. Or on which level in a
> complex crossing with fly-overs and stuff. 
> Beside that, would it be a problem to add a key for generic road
> classification while still keeping the old values? Users could use the
> generic classification by preference, and default to the older tags.
> (I'm not voting, just thinking loud)

No, road_level is an administrative level like admin_level is to places.
It is not to be confused with level=## and layer=## tags.

There are 6 different tiers of classified roads in Russia: M, R,
national A, provincial A, K, provincial minor. In road_level system, you
can express them as M=0, R=1, national A=2, provincial A=3, K=4,
minor=5. This system also allows non-primary motorways, which are not
expressible in current tagging scheme, (such as metropolitan motorways
in Spain) as you can combine highway=motorway with road_level=## tag.

It can also be generalised to railways. railway=rail where road_level
corresponds to

0=high speed railroad (vmax>250km/h, no level crossings, fully
signalled), 1=passenger-rated mainline, 2=freight-rated mainline,
3=branch line, 4=mining railroad.

I forgot stating an important detail. This is backwards compatible.
highway=road without road_level=* would default to unclassiffied unknown
road just like now.


09-05-2018 11:15 tarihinde Mateusz Konieczny yazdı:
> 8. May 2018 22:56 by erkinalp9...@gmail.com
> :
>
> I hereby propose a new tagging scheme. highway=primary ... tertiary
> deprecated. highway=road road_level= where values
> correspond to
>
> 0=trunk, 1=primary, 2=secondary, 3=tertiary etc. highway=motorway and
> other special tags (pedestrian, footway, service, track, path,
> living_street etc.) would still be used.
>
>
> In case that you are serious: new tagging scheme, especially one
> breaking nearly
>
> all software using OSM data should explain why it is a good idea.
>
>


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Peter Elderson]

Road level sounds to me like how high it is. Or on which level in a complex
crossing with fly-overs and stuff.
Beside that, would it be a problem to add a key for generic road
classification while still keeping the old values? Users could use the
generic classification by preference, and default to the older tags. (I'm
not voting, just thinking loud)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

8. May 2018 22:41 by pla16...@gmail.com :


> The bit(s) that caused this whole thread to take place. :)  Let's try to 
> avoid this happening a year or two
> down the line. 
>




See the first post - I already changed wiki.




 I noticed that asking "I think that XYZ, maybe somebody should change wiki"

tends to not have any positive effects, while "I changed wiki, I was not 100% 
sure"

strategy tends to be more effective.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

8. May 2018 22:56 by erkinalp9...@gmail.com :


> I hereby propose a new tagging scheme. highway=primary ... tertiary
> deprecated. highway=road road_level= where values
> correspond to
>
> 0=trunk, 1=primary, 2=secondary, 3=tertiary etc. highway=motorway and
> other special tags (pedestrian, footway, service, track, path,
> living_street etc.) would still be used.
>




In case that you are serious: new tagging scheme, especially one breaking nearly

all software using OSM data should explain why it is a good idea.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Erkin Alp Güney]

I hereby propose a new tagging scheme. highway=primary ... tertiary
deprecated. highway=road road_level= where values
correspond to

0=trunk, 1=primary, 2=secondary, 3=tertiary etc. highway=motorway and
other special tags (pedestrian, footway, service, track, path,
living_street etc.) would still be used.


08-05-2018 23:41 tarihinde Paul Allen yazdı:
>
> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 8:58 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 8. May 2018, at 11:26, Paul Allen  > wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps, if we reach a conclusion here, the documentation may
> need to be
> > updated to make things a little more clear.
>
>
> which part would you like to change / reword specifically?
>
>
> The bit(s) that caused this whole thread to take place. :)  Let's try
> to avoid this happening a year or two
> down the line.
>
> -- 
> Paul
>
Yours, faithfully
Erkin Alp

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 8:58 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 8. May 2018, at 11:26, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps, if we reach a conclusion here, the documentation may need to be
> > updated to make things a little more clear.
>
>
> which part would you like to change / reword specifically?
>

The bit(s) that caused this whole thread to take place. :)  Let's try to
avoid this happening a year or two
down the line.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 8. May 2018, at 11:26, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> Perhaps, if we reach a conclusion here, the documentation may need to be
> updated to make things a little more clear.


which part would you like to change / reword specifically? 

With regard to the topic, IMHO there is no problem with unclassified roads 
having a ref. Road numbering generally doesn’t relate to OSM road classes, the 
meaning of route classes depends on the local situation. For example in Germany 
or Italy (AFAIK in France as well) it indicates the territorial entity which is 
in charge of the road maintenance (and maybe also of planning, building and 
operating). While it probably once was and in many cases still is a 
hierarchical system of network importance (national roads more important than 
regional roads than municipal roads), there are also quite some exceptions now 
for different (historic, political, etc.) reasons.

While the route numbering system is the most known administrative road system, 
it is not necessarily the one with the best correspondence to osm highway 
classes. For example the German administration has different classes they use 
internally for the planning of the network, consisting of 6 classes for 
connection significance, and 5 categories for the typology according to 
context. The combination of both describes the road type: 
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richtlinien_für_integrierte_Netzgestaltung

Similar codes will likely exist in most places. I am telling this to encourage 
people not to feel bound by route numbers when classifying roads, those are 
probably not the only “official” system used for road classification in your 
country.

Cheers,
Martin


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Dave F]

On 06/05/2018 13:28, Philip Barnes wrote:


For unsigned references we use official_ref and prow_ref which will not
appear on the standard map but can be rendered on more specialised
maps.


Back in May'15 on Talk-GB there was a discussion about this [1]. 
Highway_authority_ref was proposed as it clarified the origin & enure it 
would be shown on a map if a renderer decided to amalgamate 
'official_ref' with 'ref'. There was also a feeling there could be 
multiple 'official' refs. I've adopted this..


[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017390.html

DaveF.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:19 AM, Greg Troxel  wrote:

> Dave Swarthout  writes:
>
> In the UK, there is a notion of A/B/C roads, and then unclassified.  I
> gather this means they are part of the network but not declared one of
> A/B/C.
>

Not quite correct.  In fact there has been a lot of speculation in this
thread that misses
the mark.

The UK has road classifications M (motorway), A, B, C, D and U, although
normally
C, D and U do not appear on signs or maps (technically, they should not
appear but
exceptions are known).

None of the classifications, other than M, necessarily tell you anything
about the
width or quality of the road (usually, they do, but it's not always the
case).  Instead they
tell you (approximately) about the traffic density and are (or originally
were) intended
to indicate a preference ranking of sorts.  If you want to get from X to Y
you'd try to
use motorways as much as possible, where you can't use a motorway you'd use
A
roads, where you can't use A roads you'd use B roads.  If you have local
knowledge
you might, on some routes, prefer a B road or even a C road to a motorway.

I've simplified a lot.  It's more complicated, and less sensible, than
that.  See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_road_numbering_scheme and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roads_in_the_United_Kingdom#Classification

See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway

Perhaps, if we reach a conclusion here, the documentation may need to be
updated to make things a little more clear.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Tod Fitch]

Reminds me of an earlier career where I sometime had to deal with sensitive 
documents. All documents had to classified: “Top Secret”, “Secret”, 
“Confidential”, etc. But if a document did not require clearance to access it 
was classified as “unclassified”. Basically anything that was not classified as 
something else was classified as unclassified. Bureaucrats are wonderful at 
coming up with that type of thing.

I view the OSM/UK highway classification scheme the same way: “Unclassified” is 
a bucket to put things into that don’t meet the criteria for the other 
classifications. Perhaps it would have been better if they had used the word 
“other” but they didn’t. So just look up the code word “unclassified” in your 
OSM to American English code book and read out “other”. Not a motorway, trunk, 
primary, secondary, residential, service, track, etc.? Then it must be 
classified as “unclassified” (i.e. “other”).


> On May 7, 2018, at 5:19 PM, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> 
> Dave Swarthout  writes:
> 
>> But when a highway has an officially assigned ref doesn't that define it as
>> "classified"? I don't have a large stake in this discussion but it would
> 
> You would think.  But no.
> 
> In the UK, there is a notion of A/B/C roads, and then unclassified.  I
> gather this means they are part of the network but not declared one of
> A/B/C.
> 
> I was in Scotland (in the highlands just off Skye) in 2016, and saw a
> road that was U, and signed as U (a real number, but I don't
> remember it).  It was even more minor than the nearby C road.
> 
>> seem to me that any road so ranked by the authorities should not be tagged
>> as unclassified.
> 
> If you think of it as A/B/C/D where A is the most important
> (non-Interstate) roads and D the least, where D roads are just barely
> worthy of being numbered, but that we call D as U instead because that's
> what they do in the UK, I think you are not that far off.
> 
> Around me, unclassified is typically used for roads that are somewhat
> more important than others, but not to the level of being numbered.
> 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:19 PM, Greg Troxel  wrote:

> Dave Swarthout  writes:
>
> > But when a highway has an officially assigned ref doesn't that define it
> as
> > "classified"? I don't have a large stake in this discussion but it would
>
> You would think.  But no.
>
> In the UK, there is a notion of A/B/C roads, and then unclassified.  I
> gather this means they are part of the network but not declared one of
> A/B/C.
>
> I was in Scotland (in the highlands just off Skye) in 2016, and saw a
> road that was U, and signed as U (a real number, but I don't
> remember it).  It was even more minor than the nearby C road.
>
> > seem to me that any road so ranked by the authorities should not be
> tagged
> > as unclassified.
>
> If you think of it as A/B/C/D where A is the most important
> (non-Interstate) roads and D the least, where D roads are just barely
> worthy of being numbered, but that we call D as U instead because that's
> what they do in the UK, I think you are not that far off.
>
> Around me, unclassified is typically used for roads that are somewhat
> more important than others, but not to the level of being numbered.


And it's not hard to adapt to other places, for the most part.  It's about
the only sensible way to deal with Texas with it's multitudes of primary
state highways (secondary in OSM parlance) and secondary state highways
(generally tertiary in OSM parlance, since they're (mostly) all equal in
importance).  Otherwise you'd have to work out a ranking system on this
that goes into quaternary, quinery, sextary, septery...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Greg Troxel]

Dave Swarthout  writes:

> But when a highway has an officially assigned ref doesn't that define it as
> "classified"? I don't have a large stake in this discussion but it would

You would think.  But no.

In the UK, there is a notion of A/B/C roads, and then unclassified.  I
gather this means they are part of the network but not declared one of
A/B/C.

I was in Scotland (in the highlands just off Skye) in 2016, and saw a
road that was U, and signed as U (a real number, but I don't
remember it).  It was even more minor than the nearby C road.

> seem to me that any road so ranked by the authorities should not be tagged
> as unclassified.

If you think of it as A/B/C/D where A is the most important
(non-Interstate) roads and D the least, where D roads are just barely
worthy of being numbered, but that we call D as U instead because that's
what they do in the UK, I think you are not that far off.

Around me, unclassified is typically used for roads that are somewhat
more important than others, but not to the level of being numbered.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Warin]

+1 with Tod Fitch.
The OSM/UK road types are relevant in the UK, but need to be translated 
for use elsewhere.


On 08/05/18 04:53, Tod Fitch wrote:

I sometimes think those of us who speak a dialect of English other than that of 
the UK should simply view tag values as “code words” and not worry about the 
definition is.

We already have wiki pages dedicated to helping translate local road levels 
into OSM/UK road classifications. Just accept that UK/OSM “unclassified” does 
not mean unclassified in any context other than OSM/UK roads. Just accept that 
it is a meaningless series of letters and could just as easily be something 
like “x23q”. Use it as a code word index into the wiki page for your country on 
what type of road that represents.

Looking at the wiki page for my country’s agreed upon translation, I tag public 
roads that are below that of a tertiary but do not have houses on them as 
“unclassified”. If the agency maintaining the road has placed markers, even 
just little inconspicuous ones, that list their reference ID for the road then 
I consider that fair game to tag as either ref or unsigned_ref (generally I’ll 
go with unsigned ref if the signs are not specifically designed for the 
motorist to see and use for guidance).


On May 7, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Erkin Alp Güney  wrote:

Russia is an example of this, they have many unpaved quarternary and
quinary roads.

07-05-2018 21:13 tarihinde Kevin Kenny yazdı:

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:47 PM, yo paseopor > wrote:

The topic is the classification of OSM is not the same as
countries have, and this make troubles. An UNCLASSIFIED road as
its name says it is unclassified...but when you need some road
classification with a step more than tertiary then you use
unclassified, and if the road has ref...you put in then. Why don't
you reorder the tertiary roads? They also catch your less thant
tertiary roads in your country. Also it is the same problem with
trunk or primary: whatis the difference between trunk of one lane
per direction and a primary road? Also you have the issue if you
consider the administrative classification as we do some
countries: a trunk may be a trunk because being managed by one
specific administration? WTF? Is it good for the map? All the
roads by a local administration should be unclassified? It is a
complicated problem. I suggest to reclassify the other roads in
their grades to make unclassified roads unclassified as the name
says it.


One issue is that we have the "UK English is the language of tagging"
rule - which widely gets interpreted as "highway classification must
be force-fit into the UK system." The US system presents a complex
problem for this, since most highway classification is delegated to
the states, and they all have their own local schemes.

In many counties in the US, rural roads are unnamed and have only
reference numbers. A farm road may be "County Road 2200N" (which is a
different classification from, say, "County Highway 23", and typically
shown only on small blade signs, not banner signs) or "State Farm and
Market Road #2134". As I understand it, it would fit pretty closely
with what "unclassified" roads - which are a formal classification in
the UK! - are understood to be.

Near where I live, numbered 'US', 'State' and many 'County' roads do
NOT reflect the governing body - they are all managed by the state
department of transportation. Historically, they had other structures,
but responsibilities were reallocated. The 'US' highway numbers are
coordinated with neighbouring states, but the administration is by the
state.  There are also numbered but (nearly) unsigned 'reference
routes' also maintained by the state to 'State' highway standards. I
say 'nearly' unsigned because they do often have inconspicuous
chaining markers with their numbers.

Rather than labeling the governing body, the 'US', 'State' and
'County' designations around here reflect the grade of importance,
expected level of traffic and expected quality of maintenance.  Given
that the designation reflects relative importance rather than
administrative jurisdiction, despite the labeling, I'm comfortable
with having US, State, and County numbered roads be 'primary',
'secondary' and 'tertiary' - but in the places where the counties
number virtually every road, there is a need for a tier below
'tertiary' - and 'unclassified' seems to be it; it's a working
category that might otherwise be 'quaternary.'




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Warin]

Dave ... careful with the use of logic where OSM tagging is concerned.

The road values come from the UK system, and need to be adapted to other 
places.
So 'unclassified' may be translated to some type of road in another part 
of the world that could carry a reference.



On 07/05/18 22:02, Dave Swarthout wrote:
But when a highway has an officially assigned ref doesn't that define 
it as "classified"? I don't have a large stake in this discussion but 
it would seem to me that any road so ranked by the authorities should 
not be tagged as unclassified.


My 2 cents

Dave

On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Andrew Hain 
> wrote:


The use of the ref tag for highway authority road numbers is
controversial in the UK (no road with a signed number would be as
low as highway=unclassified). There may be better examples in
other countries.


--

Andrew




*From:* Philip Barnes >
*Sent:* 06 May 2018 13:28
*To:* tagging@openstreetmap.org 
*Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have
highway=unclassified with ref tag?
On Sun, 2018-05-06 at 09:41 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> I am pretty sure that it is entirely possible to have
> highway=unclassified
> with officially assigned and posted ref number, but I wanted to
check
> whatever my edit on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3

> Dunclassified
> was correct.

It is certainly possible, in the UK all public highways have a
reference number. For lower classifications these references are used
internally by Local Authorities and the references do not appear on
signs. The consensus is that only references that a visible should use
the ref tag in OSM.

For unsigned references we use official_ref and prow_ref which
will not
appear on the standard map but can be rendered on more specialised
maps.

Phil (trigpoint)



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Tod Fitch]

I sometimes think those of us who speak a dialect of English other than that of 
the UK should simply view tag values as “code words” and not worry about the 
definition is.

We already have wiki pages dedicated to helping translate local road levels 
into OSM/UK road classifications. Just accept that UK/OSM “unclassified” does 
not mean unclassified in any context other than OSM/UK roads. Just accept that 
it is a meaningless series of letters and could just as easily be something 
like “x23q”. Use it as a code word index into the wiki page for your country on 
what type of road that represents.

Looking at the wiki page for my country’s agreed upon translation, I tag public 
roads that are below that of a tertiary but do not have houses on them as 
“unclassified”. If the agency maintaining the road has placed markers, even 
just little inconspicuous ones, that list their reference ID for the road then 
I consider that fair game to tag as either ref or unsigned_ref (generally I’ll 
go with unsigned ref if the signs are not specifically designed for the 
motorist to see and use for guidance).

> On May 7, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Erkin Alp Güney  wrote:
> 
> Russia is an example of this, they have many unpaved quarternary and
> quinary roads.
> 
> 07-05-2018 21:13 tarihinde Kevin Kenny yazdı:
>> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:47 PM, yo paseopor > > wrote:
>> 
>>The topic is the classification of OSM is not the same as
>>countries have, and this make troubles. An UNCLASSIFIED road as
>>its name says it is unclassified...but when you need some road
>>classification with a step more than tertiary then you use
>>unclassified, and if the road has ref...you put in then. Why don't
>>you reorder the tertiary roads? They also catch your less thant
>>tertiary roads in your country. Also it is the same problem with
>>trunk or primary: whatis the difference between trunk of one lane
>>per direction and a primary road? Also you have the issue if you
>>consider the administrative classification as we do some
>>countries: a trunk may be a trunk because being managed by one
>>specific administration? WTF? Is it good for the map? All the
>>roads by a local administration should be unclassified? It is a
>>complicated problem. I suggest to reclassify the other roads in
>>their grades to make unclassified roads unclassified as the name
>>says it.
>> 
>> 
>> One issue is that we have the "UK English is the language of tagging"
>> rule - which widely gets interpreted as "highway classification must
>> be force-fit into the UK system." The US system presents a complex
>> problem for this, since most highway classification is delegated to
>> the states, and they all have their own local schemes.
>> 
>> In many counties in the US, rural roads are unnamed and have only
>> reference numbers. A farm road may be "County Road 2200N" (which is a
>> different classification from, say, "County Highway 23", and typically
>> shown only on small blade signs, not banner signs) or "State Farm and
>> Market Road #2134". As I understand it, it would fit pretty closely
>> with what "unclassified" roads - which are a formal classification in
>> the UK! - are understood to be. 
>> 
>> Near where I live, numbered 'US', 'State' and many 'County' roads do
>> NOT reflect the governing body - they are all managed by the state
>> department of transportation. Historically, they had other structures,
>> but responsibilities were reallocated. The 'US' highway numbers are
>> coordinated with neighbouring states, but the administration is by the
>> state.  There are also numbered but (nearly) unsigned 'reference
>> routes' also maintained by the state to 'State' highway standards. I
>> say 'nearly' unsigned because they do often have inconspicuous
>> chaining markers with their numbers.  
>> 
>> Rather than labeling the governing body, the 'US', 'State' and
>> 'County' designations around here reflect the grade of importance,
>> expected level of traffic and expected quality of maintenance.  Given
>> that the designation reflects relative importance rather than
>> administrative jurisdiction, despite the labeling, I'm comfortable
>> with having US, State, and County numbered roads be 'primary',
>> 'secondary' and 'tertiary' - but in the places where the counties
>> number virtually every road, there is a need for a tier below
>> 'tertiary' - and 'unclassified' seems to be it; it's a working
>> category that might otherwise be 'quaternary.' 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Erkin Alp Güney]

Russia is an example of this, they have many unpaved quarternary and
quinary roads.

07-05-2018 21:13 tarihinde Kevin Kenny yazdı:
> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:47 PM, yo paseopor  > wrote:
>
> The topic is the classification of OSM is not the same as
> countries have, and this make troubles. An UNCLASSIFIED road as
> its name says it is unclassified...but when you need some road
> classification with a step more than tertiary then you use
> unclassified, and if the road has ref...you put in then. Why don't
> you reorder the tertiary roads? They also catch your less thant
> tertiary roads in your country. Also it is the same problem with
> trunk or primary: whatis the difference between trunk of one lane
> per direction and a primary road? Also you have the issue if you
> consider the administrative classification as we do some
> countries: a trunk may be a trunk because being managed by one
> specific administration? WTF? Is it good for the map? All the
> roads by a local administration should be unclassified? It is a
> complicated problem. I suggest to reclassify the other roads in
> their grades to make unclassified roads unclassified as the name
> says it.
>
>
> One issue is that we have the "UK English is the language of tagging"
> rule - which widely gets interpreted as "highway classification must
> be force-fit into the UK system." The US system presents a complex
> problem for this, since most highway classification is delegated to
> the states, and they all have their own local schemes.
>
> In many counties in the US, rural roads are unnamed and have only
> reference numbers. A farm road may be "County Road 2200N" (which is a
> different classification from, say, "County Highway 23", and typically
> shown only on small blade signs, not banner signs) or "State Farm and
> Market Road #2134". As I understand it, it would fit pretty closely
> with what "unclassified" roads - which are a formal classification in
> the UK! - are understood to be. 
>
> Near where I live, numbered 'US', 'State' and many 'County' roads do
> NOT reflect the governing body - they are all managed by the state
> department of transportation. Historically, they had other structures,
> but responsibilities were reallocated. The 'US' highway numbers are
> coordinated with neighbouring states, but the administration is by the
> state.  There are also numbered but (nearly) unsigned 'reference
> routes' also maintained by the state to 'State' highway standards. I
> say 'nearly' unsigned because they do often have inconspicuous
> chaining markers with their numbers.  
>
> Rather than labeling the governing body, the 'US', 'State' and
> 'County' designations around here reflect the grade of importance,
> expected level of traffic and expected quality of maintenance.  Given
> that the designation reflects relative importance rather than
> administrative jurisdiction, despite the labeling, I'm comfortable
> with having US, State, and County numbered roads be 'primary',
> 'secondary' and 'tertiary' - but in the places where the counties
> number virtually every road, there is a need for a tier below
> 'tertiary' - and 'unclassified' seems to be it; it's a working
> category that might otherwise be 'quaternary.' 
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Erkin Alp Güney]

OSM use is all D roads and rural U roads. Urban U roads are
highway=residential.


07-05-2018 17:35 tarihinde Rory McCann yazdı:
> On 06/05/18 09:41, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> I am pretty sure that it is entirely possible to have
>> highway=unclassified
>> with officially assigned and posted ref number, but I wanted to check
>> whatever my edit on
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
>> was correct.
>
> Yes it is! AFAIR the "highway=unclassified" comes from British usage,
> where "unclassified" was a road classification. Yes it sound silly. I
> think the refs in the UK aren't signposted, but roads with the
> unclassified classification (!) have "U" refs (e.g. "U123", instead of
> "A123" etc).
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:47 PM, yo paseopor  wrote:

> The topic is the classification of OSM is not the same as countries have,
> and this make troubles. An UNCLASSIFIED road as its name says it is
> unclassified...but when you need some road classification with a step more
> than tertiary then you use unclassified, and if the road has ref...you put
> in then. Why don't you reorder the tertiary roads? They also catch your
> less thant tertiary roads in your country. Also it is the same problem with
> trunk or primary: whatis the difference between trunk of one lane per
> direction and a primary road? Also you have the issue if you consider the
> administrative classification as we do some countries: a trunk may be a
> trunk because being managed by one specific administration? WTF? Is it good
> for the map? All the roads by a local administration should be
> unclassified? It is a complicated problem. I suggest to reclassify the
> other roads in their grades to make unclassified roads unclassified as the
> name says it.
>

One issue is that we have the "UK English is the language of tagging" rule
- which widely gets interpreted as "highway classification must be
force-fit into the UK system." The US system presents a complex problem for
this, since most highway classification is delegated to the states, and
they all have their own local schemes.

In many counties in the US, rural roads are unnamed and have only reference
numbers. A farm road may be "County Road 2200N" (which is a different
classification from, say, "County Highway 23", and typically shown only on
small blade signs, not banner signs) or "State Farm and Market Road #2134".
As I understand it, it would fit pretty closely with what "unclassified"
roads - which are a formal classification in the UK! - are understood to
be.

Near where I live, numbered 'US', 'State' and many 'County' roads do NOT
reflect the governing body - they are all managed by the state department
of transportation. Historically, they had other structures, but
responsibilities were reallocated. The 'US' highway numbers are coordinated
with neighbouring states, but the administration is by the state.  There
are also numbered but (nearly) unsigned 'reference routes' also maintained
by the state to 'State' highway standards. I say 'nearly' unsigned because
they do often have inconspicuous chaining markers with their numbers.

Rather than labeling the governing body, the 'US', 'State' and 'County'
designations around here reflect the grade of importance, expected level of
traffic and expected quality of maintenance.  Given that the designation
reflects relative importance rather than administrative jurisdiction,
despite the labeling, I'm comfortable with having US, State, and County
numbered roads be 'primary', 'secondary' and 'tertiary' - but in the places
where the counties number virtually every road, there is a need for a tier
below 'tertiary' - and 'unclassified' seems to be it; it's a working
category that might otherwise be 'quaternary.'
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7. May 2018, at 18:47, yo paseopor  wrote:
> 
> Also it is the same problem with trunk or primary: whatis the difference 
> between trunk of one lane per direction and a primary road?


in Germany and Italy (and probably some more places) the difference is between 
a road section without grade level intersections (and with ramps) vs not. Trunk 
is used in these areas for roads that are built to a standard similar to a 
motorway but not legally designated as motorway. It is not about access 
restrictions (there is the orthogonal motorroad=yes property for this).


cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Paul Johnson]

That's basically the highway=unclassified tag.

On Mon, May 7, 2018, 12:07 Vao Matua  wrote:

> There are many places where people live in Africa that could be tagged as
> Rural_Residential if that tag existed.
>
> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
>
>> yopaseopor wrote: I suggest to reclassify the other roads in their
>> grades to make unclassified roads unclassified as the name says it.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I agree with your view but this topic is full of issues. In Thailand, for
>> example, we use "unclassified" for any highway that a) has no ref, and b),
>> is neither a service road, track, or residential way. It is essentially a
>> catchall for roads that do not fall into any other category. Again, using
>> Thailand as an example, there are many small, paved roads that have few or
>> no homes on them, sort of like a service road. I think some new category
>> might be warranted. However, proposing such a change and then obtaining
>> consensus is bound to be a difficult process.
>>
>> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:47 PM, yo paseopor 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The topic is the classification of OSM is not the same as countries
>>> have, and this make troubles. An UNCLASSIFIED road as its name says it is
>>> unclassified...but when you need some road classification with a step more
>>> than tertiary then you use unclassified, and if the road has ref...you put
>>> in then. Why don't you reorder the tertiary roads? They also catch your
>>> less thant tertiary roads in your country. Also it is the same problem with
>>> trunk or primary: whatis the difference between trunk of one lane per
>>> direction and a primary road? Also you have the issue if you consider the
>>> administrative classification as we do some countries: a trunk may be a
>>> trunk because being managed by one specific administration? WTF? Is it good
>>> for the map? All the roads by a local administration should be
>>> unclassified? It is a complicated problem. I suggest to reclassify the
>>> other roads in their grades to make unclassified roads unclassified as the
>>> name says it.
>>>
>>> Salut i carreteres sense classificar (Health and unclassified roads)
>>> yopaseopor
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Richard Welty 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On 5/7/18 10:35 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
 > On 06/05/18 09:41, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
 >> I am pretty sure that it is entirely possible to have
 >> highway=unclassified
 >> with officially assigned and posted ref number, but I wanted to check
 >> whatever my edit on
 >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
 >> was correct.
 >
 > Yes it is! AFAIR the "highway=unclassified" comes from British usage,
 > where "unclassified" was a road classification. Yes it sound silly. I
 > think the refs in the UK aren't signposted, but roads with the
 > unclassified classification (!) have "U" refs (e.g. "U123", instead of
 > "A123" etc).
 by convention if a ref is unposted, many folks use unsigned_ref instead
 of ref
 for example, pretty much all the rural paved roads in North Carolina
 have state
 assigned refs, but the ordinary town roads are unposted.

 i can imagine a jurisdiction which uses signed refs on generic
 "unclassified" roads,
 but i've never seen one. i would be reluctant to explicitly rule out the
 possibility.

 richard

 --
 rwe...@averillpark.net
  Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
  OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
  Java - Web Applications - Search


 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Swarthout
>> Homer, Alaska
>> Chiang Mai, Thailand
>> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Vao Matua]

There are many places where people live in Africa that could be tagged as
Rural_Residential if that tag existed.

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> yopaseopor wrote: I suggest to reclassify the other roads in their grades
> to make unclassified roads unclassified as the name says it.
>
> +1
>
> I agree with your view but this topic is full of issues. In Thailand, for
> example, we use "unclassified" for any highway that a) has no ref, and b),
> is neither a service road, track, or residential way. It is essentially a
> catchall for roads that do not fall into any other category. Again, using
> Thailand as an example, there are many small, paved roads that have few or
> no homes on them, sort of like a service road. I think some new category
> might be warranted. However, proposing such a change and then obtaining
> consensus is bound to be a difficult process.
>
> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:47 PM, yo paseopor  wrote:
>
>> The topic is the classification of OSM is not the same as countries have,
>> and this make troubles. An UNCLASSIFIED road as its name says it is
>> unclassified...but when you need some road classification with a step more
>> than tertiary then you use unclassified, and if the road has ref...you put
>> in then. Why don't you reorder the tertiary roads? They also catch your
>> less thant tertiary roads in your country. Also it is the same problem with
>> trunk or primary: whatis the difference between trunk of one lane per
>> direction and a primary road? Also you have the issue if you consider the
>> administrative classification as we do some countries: a trunk may be a
>> trunk because being managed by one specific administration? WTF? Is it good
>> for the map? All the roads by a local administration should be
>> unclassified? It is a complicated problem. I suggest to reclassify the
>> other roads in their grades to make unclassified roads unclassified as the
>> name says it.
>>
>> Salut i carreteres sense classificar (Health and unclassified roads)
>> yopaseopor
>>
>> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Richard Welty 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/7/18 10:35 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
>>> > On 06/05/18 09:41, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>>> >> I am pretty sure that it is entirely possible to have
>>> >> highway=unclassified
>>> >> with officially assigned and posted ref number, but I wanted to check
>>> >> whatever my edit on
>>> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
>>> >> was correct.
>>> >
>>> > Yes it is! AFAIR the "highway=unclassified" comes from British usage,
>>> > where "unclassified" was a road classification. Yes it sound silly. I
>>> > think the refs in the UK aren't signposted, but roads with the
>>> > unclassified classification (!) have "U" refs (e.g. "U123", instead of
>>> > "A123" etc).
>>> by convention if a ref is unposted, many folks use unsigned_ref instead
>>> of ref
>>> for example, pretty much all the rural paved roads in North Carolina
>>> have state
>>> assigned refs, but the ordinary town roads are unposted.
>>>
>>> i can imagine a jurisdiction which uses signed refs on generic
>>> "unclassified" roads,
>>> but i've never seen one. i would be reluctant to explicitly rule out the
>>> possibility.
>>>
>>> richard
>>>
>>> --
>>> rwe...@averillpark.net
>>>  Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
>>>  OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
>>>  Java - Web Applications - Search
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Dave Swarthout]

yopaseopor wrote: I suggest to reclassify the other roads in their grades
to make unclassified roads unclassified as the name says it.

+1

I agree with your view but this topic is full of issues. In Thailand, for
example, we use "unclassified" for any highway that a) has no ref, and b),
is neither a service road, track, or residential way. It is essentially a
catchall for roads that do not fall into any other category. Again, using
Thailand as an example, there are many small, paved roads that have few or
no homes on them, sort of like a service road. I think some new category
might be warranted. However, proposing such a change and then obtaining
consensus is bound to be a difficult process.

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:47 PM, yo paseopor  wrote:

> The topic is the classification of OSM is not the same as countries have,
> and this make troubles. An UNCLASSIFIED road as its name says it is
> unclassified...but when you need some road classification with a step more
> than tertiary then you use unclassified, and if the road has ref...you put
> in then. Why don't you reorder the tertiary roads? They also catch your
> less thant tertiary roads in your country. Also it is the same problem with
> trunk or primary: whatis the difference between trunk of one lane per
> direction and a primary road? Also you have the issue if you consider the
> administrative classification as we do some countries: a trunk may be a
> trunk because being managed by one specific administration? WTF? Is it good
> for the map? All the roads by a local administration should be
> unclassified? It is a complicated problem. I suggest to reclassify the
> other roads in their grades to make unclassified roads unclassified as the
> name says it.
>
> Salut i carreteres sense classificar (Health and unclassified roads)
> yopaseopor
>
> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Richard Welty 
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/7/18 10:35 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
>> > On 06/05/18 09:41, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> >> I am pretty sure that it is entirely possible to have
>> >> highway=unclassified
>> >> with officially assigned and posted ref number, but I wanted to check
>> >> whatever my edit on
>> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
>> >> was correct.
>> >
>> > Yes it is! AFAIR the "highway=unclassified" comes from British usage,
>> > where "unclassified" was a road classification. Yes it sound silly. I
>> > think the refs in the UK aren't signposted, but roads with the
>> > unclassified classification (!) have "U" refs (e.g. "U123", instead of
>> > "A123" etc).
>> by convention if a ref is unposted, many folks use unsigned_ref instead
>> of ref
>> for example, pretty much all the rural paved roads in North Carolina
>> have state
>> assigned refs, but the ordinary town roads are unposted.
>>
>> i can imagine a jurisdiction which uses signed refs on generic
>> "unclassified" roads,
>> but i've never seen one. i would be reluctant to explicitly rule out the
>> possibility.
>>
>> richard
>>
>> --
>> rwe...@averillpark.net
>>  Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
>>  OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
>>  Java - Web Applications - Search
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[yo paseopor]

The topic is the classification of OSM is not the same as countries have,
and this make troubles. An UNCLASSIFIED road as its name says it is
unclassified...but when you need some road classification with a step more
than tertiary then you use unclassified, and if the road has ref...you put
in then. Why don't you reorder the tertiary roads? They also catch your
less thant tertiary roads in your country. Also it is the same problem with
trunk or primary: whatis the difference between trunk of one lane per
direction and a primary road? Also you have the issue if you consider the
administrative classification as we do some countries: a trunk may be a
trunk because being managed by one specific administration? WTF? Is it good
for the map? All the roads by a local administration should be
unclassified? It is a complicated problem. I suggest to reclassify the
other roads in their grades to make unclassified roads unclassified as the
name says it.

Salut i carreteres sense classificar (Health and unclassified roads)
yopaseopor

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Richard Welty 
wrote:

> On 5/7/18 10:35 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
> > On 06/05/18 09:41, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> >> I am pretty sure that it is entirely possible to have
> >> highway=unclassified
> >> with officially assigned and posted ref number, but I wanted to check
> >> whatever my edit on
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
> >> was correct.
> >
> > Yes it is! AFAIR the "highway=unclassified" comes from British usage,
> > where "unclassified" was a road classification. Yes it sound silly. I
> > think the refs in the UK aren't signposted, but roads with the
> > unclassified classification (!) have "U" refs (e.g. "U123", instead of
> > "A123" etc).
> by convention if a ref is unposted, many folks use unsigned_ref instead
> of ref
> for example, pretty much all the rural paved roads in North Carolina
> have state
> assigned refs, but the ordinary town roads are unposted.
>
> i can imagine a jurisdiction which uses signed refs on generic
> "unclassified" roads,
> but i've never seen one. i would be reluctant to explicitly rule out the
> possibility.
>
> richard
>
> --
> rwe...@averillpark.net
>  Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
>  OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
>  Java - Web Applications - Search
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Richard Welty]

On 5/7/18 10:35 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
> On 06/05/18 09:41, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> I am pretty sure that it is entirely possible to have
>> highway=unclassified
>> with officially assigned and posted ref number, but I wanted to check
>> whatever my edit on
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
>> was correct.
>
> Yes it is! AFAIR the "highway=unclassified" comes from British usage,
> where "unclassified" was a road classification. Yes it sound silly. I
> think the refs in the UK aren't signposted, but roads with the
> unclassified classification (!) have "U" refs (e.g. "U123", instead of
> "A123" etc). 
by convention if a ref is unposted, many folks use unsigned_ref instead
of ref
for example, pretty much all the rural paved roads in North Carolina
have state
assigned refs, but the ordinary town roads are unposted.

i can imagine a jurisdiction which uses signed refs on generic
"unclassified" roads,
but i've never seen one. i would be reluctant to explicitly rule out the
possibility.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Rory McCann]

On 06/05/18 09:41, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

I am pretty sure that it is entirely possible to have highway=unclassified
with officially assigned and posted ref number, but I wanted to check
whatever my edit on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified

was correct.


Yes it is! AFAIR the "highway=unclassified" comes from British usage, 
where "unclassified" was a road classification. Yes it sound silly. I 
think the refs in the UK aren't signposted, but roads with the 
unclassified classification (!) have "U" refs (e.g. "U123", instead of 
"A123" etc).




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Dave Swarthout]

But when a highway has an officially assigned ref doesn't that define it as
"classified"? I don't have a large stake in this discussion but it would
seem to me that any road so ranked by the authorities should not be tagged
as unclassified.

My 2 cents

Dave

On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Andrew Hain 
wrote:

> The use of the ref tag for highway authority road numbers is controversial
> in the UK (no road with a signed number would be as low as
> highway=unclassified). There may be better examples in other countries.
>
>
> --
>
> Andrew
>
>
> --
> *From:* Philip Barnes 
> *Sent:* 06 May 2018 13:28
> *To:* tagging@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with
> ref tag?
>
> On Sun, 2018-05-06 at 09:41 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > I am pretty sure that it is entirely possible to have
> > highway=unclassified
> > with officially assigned and posted ref number, but I wanted to check
> > whatever my edit on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3
> > Dunclassified
> > was correct.
>
> It is certainly possible, in the UK all public highways have a
> reference number. For lower classifications these references are used
> internally by Local Authorities and the references do not appear on
> signs. The consensus is that only references that a visible should use
> the ref tag in OSM.
>
> For unsigned references we use official_ref and prow_ref which will not
> appear on the standard map but can be rendered on more specialised
> maps.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 7:28 AM, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Sun, 2018-05-06 at 09:41 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > I am pretty sure that it is entirely possible to have
> > highway=unclassified
> > with officially assigned and posted ref number, but I wanted to check
> > whatever my edit on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3
> > Dunclassified
> > was correct.
>
> It is certainly possible, in the UK all public highways have a
> reference number. For lower classifications these references are used
> internally by Local Authorities and the references do not appear on
> signs. The consensus is that only references that a visible should use
> the ref tag in OSM.
>

Sounds similar to how Oregon handles state roads, from the largest roads
like Oregon Trail (I 84) and Baldock Freeway (I 5) down to unnamed service
roads connecting RV spaces in rarely traveled state parks.

For unsigned references we use official_ref and prow_ref which will not
> appear on the standard map but can be rendered on more specialised
> maps.
>

Seems like we really ought to be more seriously considering going to
route=road relations for signed routes, and ref=* on ways for what the ref
of the way (but not necessarily the route) is.  As it stands now, the ref
of the way doesn't necessarily match the ref of the way, it matches the ref
of the route that runs over it, seemingly the only example of where tag
describing one entity is applied to a *completely different* entity.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 2:41 AM, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> I am pretty sure that it is entirely possible to have highway=unclassified
> with officially assigned and posted ref number, but I wanted to check
> whatever my edit on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%
> 3Dunclassified
> was correct.
>

Not only is it possible, but it's also typical in much of the midwest.

Local example: The farther away you get from any town or city, and
especially if you're not directly on one of the four cardinal directions
from Tulsa or Oklahoma City, the more likely every road you encounter will
be ref=CR D and have no name.  The D is usually N or E, and the  is
the number of tenths of a mile you are either south or east of the
northwesternmost corner of the Oklahoma panhandle (so around Rogers County
northeast but nearish Tulsa, you see a lot of CR E31x0 roads and CR N07x0
roads, none with names).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2018-05-06 at 09:41 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> I am pretty sure that it is entirely possible to have
> highway=unclassified
> with officially assigned and posted ref number, but I wanted to check
> whatever my edit on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3
> Dunclassified
> was correct.

It is certainly possible, in the UK all public highways have a
reference number. For lower classifications these references are used
internally by Local Authorities and the references do not appear on
signs. The consensus is that only references that a visible should use
the ref tag in OSM.

For unsigned references we use official_ref and prow_ref which will not
appear on the standard map but can be rendered on more specialised
maps.

Phil (trigpoint)



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I am pretty sure that it is entirely possible to have highway=unclassified
with officially assigned and posted ref number, but I wanted to check
whatever my edit on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified 

was correct.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging