Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
sent from a phone > Il giorno 31 gen 2020, alle ore 17:58, Jmapb ha scritto: > > In neither case would I say that adding an old_ref or old_name tag is > wrong per se, but I doubt that it would ever be particularly helpful. I am using the old_ref tag occasionally, it doesn’t harm and could sometimes be helpful... Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 2:57 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > There's an 'Old Route 28' in New Hampshire, too - same thing, regular > old street signs, no shields. Bing's picture is a bit better on that > one https://binged.it/2vETto1 Pan around to look south and you can > see the regular old NH 28 shield on the modern road. And https://binged.it/2RKzk8v has an 'Old Route 30' in Pennsylvania - same thing, no shields, no chaining markers, just the signs for a regular street. (In this particular case you can also find shields with an 'L' on them - they're historic route markers for the Lincoln Highway. (That has a route relation, and is often but not universally the street name. In this specific location, it is not.) -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 11:58 AM Jmapb wrote: > Other sections are further removed and have their own road signs (long > green street signs, not highway shields) that say "OLD ROUTE 28". House > and business addresses use Old Route 28 as the street name. These ways > should definitely keep the tag "name=Old Route 28". There's an 'Old Route 28' in New Hampshire, too - same thing, regular old street signs, no shields. Bing's picture is a bit better on that one https://binged.it/2vETto1 Pan around to look south and you can see the regular old NH 28 shield on the modern road. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:23:59 -0600 Paul Johnson wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 3:15 PM Kevin Kenny > wrote: > > > Oh, and a further corner case: Are we agreed that something like > > "Old Route 7" has become a name? It's no longer a ref, because > > Route 7 is now elsewhere. It appears on street signs like any other > > name, not on a reference banner, and it's the 'addr:street' of the > > houses on it. > > Eeeh, I'd generally suggest tagging that as noname=yes old_ref=US 7 > (if the old route was a US route) to retain more information. > Signing is pretty similar, too, some places will leave the old > shields up and change the banner from a cardinal to OLD until the > signs wear out as a wayfinder for folks with outdated maps. Much of > the midwest, on nameless roads that have routes, just put something > like "SH 33" or "Hwy 412" on the finger signs as a low-budget > solution to posting a proper, potentially multicolor, die-cut, > screen-printed shield and a double-ended arrow as is MUTCD standard > for such a case. addr:street still goes with however the post finds > it. It helps to know the local context quite a bit when trying to > sort out how local authorities cheaped out on posting standard signs. We're talking about things like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9476496,-116.6987819,3a,48.7y,88.67h,85.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjR-Dn3KbBuH4y79suqVilg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 US 95 was re-aligned as part of upgrading it to Interstate standards (the overpass in the background is the new routing). The old route has ordinary street signs showing the name "North Old Highway 95" and no shields. -- Mark ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On 1/31/2020 11:56 AM, Jmapb wrote: They don't have their own street signs, and addresses along them will be 12345 Route 28 (or 12345 State Route 28, or 12345 State Highway 28, or 12345 NY 28... poorly standardized.) There might be a case for removing the name= from these, maybe even tagging them as highway=service. ( eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20215809 ). ...Mea culpa, this one *does* in fact have its own "OLD ROUTE 28" street sign: https://binged.it/31nKVOh (pretty blurry in this pic) J ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
Le 30.01.20 à 23:51, Warin a écrit : > comment=local name is used verbally, not on signs as yet.' unsigned=name or unsigned=yes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On 1/30/2020 6:22 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: Uhm. It looks pretty much like any other `highway=unclassified`. The signs say 'Old Route 7' in the style the township uses for rural roads. There are no shields or chaining markers to indicate that it's a state highway. And it's been called, 'Old Route 7' for decades. This isn't a case of the state adding 'OLD' in place of a directional marker, this is just that the town never saw fit to name the remaining road anything else, and put up signs showing the name as it is. (And I've given the wrong number, but I'm far too lazy to look up the correct one.) I've mapped some bits of Old Route 28 in New York. In most places the current NY 28 is on the same roadbed as the old highway, but here and there small segments of the former road remain. They're mostly tagged "name=Old Route 28" from TIGER (I see one "name=Old St Hwy 28"). Some bits are close enough to the new route 28 that they serve as little access roads. They don't have their own street signs, and addresses along them will be 12345 Route 28 (or 12345 State Route 28, or 12345 State Highway 28, or 12345 NY 28... poorly standardized.) There might be a case for removing the name= from these, maybe even tagging them as highway=service. ( eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20215809 ). Other sections are further removed and have their own road signs (long green street signs, not highway shields) that say "OLD ROUTE 28". House and business addresses use Old Route 28 as the street name. These ways should definitely keep the tag "name=Old Route 28". In neither case would I say that adding an old_ref or old_name tag is wrong per se, but I doubt that it would ever be particularly helpful. But there are some situations where I'd say old_ref is a good idea, see these signs from the transition from US-666 to US-491: https://i.imgur.com/znnYnpt.jpg J ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 5:42 PM Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > "Old Route 7" or "Old Highway 7" etc might be used as the actual name of > the remaining street after the highway is realigned to run elsewhere. > I've seen this happen in Texas a lot. Yup. It happens near me, too, and it's the situation I'm discussing. On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 5:52 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > old_name=Old Route 7 ... perhaps this should more correctly be old_name=Route > 7 > > If it does not appear on signs but locals refer to it as such then > > local_name=Old Route 7 > > And then add 'comment=local name is used verbally, not on signs as yet.' > > ??? Uhm. It looks pretty much like any other `highway=unclassified`. The signs say 'Old Route 7' in the style the township uses for rural roads. There are no shields or chaining markers to indicate that it's a state highway. And it's been called, 'Old Route 7' for decades. This isn't a case of the state adding 'OLD' in place of a directional marker, this is just that the town never saw fit to name the remaining road anything else, and put up signs showing the name as it is. (And I've given the wrong number, but I'm far too lazy to look up the correct one.) -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
old_name=Old Route 7 ... perhaps this should more correctly be old_name=Route 7 If it does not appear on signs but locals refer to it as such then local_name=Old Route 7 And then add 'comment=local name is used verbally, not on signs as yet.' ??? On 31/1/20 9:22 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Are we agreed that something like "Old Route 7" has become a name? I'd generally suggest tagging that as noname=yes old_ref=US 7 I find that strange. It's no longer a ref. It won't have a "US 7" sign anywhere on it, because it is not part of "US 7". How would a map renderer label this with a ref "shield", especially if the language is not English? The road system in the USA is not always sensible enough to fit in a box. There are many things that don't fit in OSM, either they are not meant to be fitted or there is probably some obscure tag that is what your after. - Joseph Eisenberg On 1/31/20, Paul Johnson wrote: On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 3:15 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 2:50 PM Richard Fairhurst wrote: Honestly, there is, and it's as Paul and I have described - you put the ref in the ref tag and leave the name tag blank. This is how it has been in OSM since pretty much day one. If a newbie in Europe puts a ref in the name tag, it gets stomped on pretty quickly. The reason it might seem otherwise in the States is that the TIGER import didn't populate the ref tag, just the name tag, and a lot of the TIGER import still hasn't been cleared up. So there's a bunch of TIGER-derived roads which have things like "name=County Road 23" (or Township Road, or "Co Rd", or many other variations). OK, I'll add that to the things I look for. As I said, I'd been retaining it only when it's the only name, and I never added any new ways with that, merely refrained from repairing that case. It's encouraging that in this particular discussion, that's the only detail you guys say I got wrong. 'ref' tag on the way for the renderer; road route relation with detailed network and ref; never an alt_name or name_1, etc. with a route reference. Oh, and a further corner case: Are we agreed that something like "Old Route 7" has become a name? It's no longer a ref, because Route 7 is now elsewhere. It appears on street signs like any other name, not on a reference banner, and it's the 'addr:street' of the houses on it. Eeeh, I'd generally suggest tagging that as noname=yes old_ref=US 7 (if the old route was a US route) to retain more information. Signing is pretty similar, too, some places will leave the old shields up and change the banner from a cardinal to OLD until the signs wear out as a wayfinder for folks with outdated maps. Much of the midwest, on nameless roads that have routes, just put something like "SH 33" or "Hwy 412" on the finger signs as a low-budget solution to posting a proper, potentially multicolor, die-cut, screen-printed shield and a double-ended arrow as is MUTCD standard for such a case. addr:street still goes with however the post finds it. It helps to know the local context quite a bit when trying to sort out how local authorities cheaped out on posting standard signs. ___ 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] road names and refs
On 1/30/20 15:14, Kevin Kenny wrote: > Oh, and a further corner case: Are we agreed that something like "Old > Route 7" has become a name? It's no longer a ref, because Route 7 is > now elsewhere. It appears on street signs like any other name, not on > a reference banner, and it's the 'addr:street' of the houses on it. "Old Route 7" or "Old Highway 7" etc might be used as the actual name of the remaining street after the highway is realigned to run elsewhere. I've seen this happen in Texas a lot. If it belongs in 'addr:street' for the buildings near it, usually it belongs in 'name'. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
>> Are we agreed that something like "Old Route 7" has become a name? > I'd generally suggest tagging that as noname=yes old_ref=US 7 I find that strange. It's no longer a ref. It won't have a "US 7" sign anywhere on it, because it is not part of "US 7". How would a map renderer label this with a ref "shield", especially if the language is not English? The road system in the USA is not always sensible enough to fit in a box. - Joseph Eisenberg On 1/31/20, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 3:15 PM Kevin Kenny > wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 2:50 PM Richard Fairhurst >> wrote: >> > Honestly, there is, and it's as Paul and I have described - you put the >> ref >> > in the ref tag and leave the name tag blank. This is how it has been in >> OSM >> > since pretty much day one. If a newbie in Europe puts a ref in the name >> tag, >> > it gets stomped on pretty quickly. >> > >> > The reason it might seem otherwise in the States is that the TIGER >> > import >> > didn't populate the ref tag, just the name tag, and a lot of the TIGER >> > import still hasn't been cleared up. So there's a bunch of >> > TIGER-derived >> > roads which have things like "name=County Road 23" (or Township Road, >> > or >> "Co >> > Rd", or many other variations). >> >> OK, I'll add that to the things I look for. As I said, I'd been >> retaining it only when it's the only name, and I never added any new >> ways with that, merely refrained from repairing that case. >> >> It's encouraging that in this particular discussion, that's the only >> detail you guys say I got wrong. 'ref' tag on the way for the >> renderer; road route relation with detailed network and ref; never an >> alt_name or name_1, etc. with a route reference. >> >> Oh, and a further corner case: Are we agreed that something like "Old >> Route 7" has become a name? It's no longer a ref, because Route 7 is >> now elsewhere. It appears on street signs like any other name, not on >> a reference banner, and it's the 'addr:street' of the houses on it. >> > > Eeeh, I'd generally suggest tagging that as noname=yes old_ref=US 7 (if the > old route was a US route) to retain more information. Signing is pretty > similar, too, some places will leave the old shields up and change the > banner from a cardinal to OLD until the signs wear out as a wayfinder for > folks with outdated maps. Much of the midwest, on nameless roads that have > routes, just put something like "SH 33" or "Hwy 412" on the finger signs as > a low-budget solution to posting a proper, potentially multicolor, die-cut, > screen-printed shield and a double-ended arrow as is MUTCD standard for > such a case. addr:street still goes with however the post finds it. It > helps to know the local context quite a bit when trying to sort out how > local authorities cheaped out on posting standard signs. > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 3:15 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 2:50 PM Richard Fairhurst > wrote: > > Honestly, there is, and it's as Paul and I have described - you put the > ref > > in the ref tag and leave the name tag blank. This is how it has been in > OSM > > since pretty much day one. If a newbie in Europe puts a ref in the name > tag, > > it gets stomped on pretty quickly. > > > > The reason it might seem otherwise in the States is that the TIGER import > > didn't populate the ref tag, just the name tag, and a lot of the TIGER > > import still hasn't been cleared up. So there's a bunch of TIGER-derived > > roads which have things like "name=County Road 23" (or Township Road, or > "Co > > Rd", or many other variations). > > OK, I'll add that to the things I look for. As I said, I'd been > retaining it only when it's the only name, and I never added any new > ways with that, merely refrained from repairing that case. > > It's encouraging that in this particular discussion, that's the only > detail you guys say I got wrong. 'ref' tag on the way for the > renderer; road route relation with detailed network and ref; never an > alt_name or name_1, etc. with a route reference. > > Oh, and a further corner case: Are we agreed that something like "Old > Route 7" has become a name? It's no longer a ref, because Route 7 is > now elsewhere. It appears on street signs like any other name, not on > a reference banner, and it's the 'addr:street' of the houses on it. > Eeeh, I'd generally suggest tagging that as noname=yes old_ref=US 7 (if the old route was a US route) to retain more information. Signing is pretty similar, too, some places will leave the old shields up and change the banner from a cardinal to OLD until the signs wear out as a wayfinder for folks with outdated maps. Much of the midwest, on nameless roads that have routes, just put something like "SH 33" or "Hwy 412" on the finger signs as a low-budget solution to posting a proper, potentially multicolor, die-cut, screen-printed shield and a double-ended arrow as is MUTCD standard for such a case. addr:street still goes with however the post finds it. It helps to know the local context quite a bit when trying to sort out how local authorities cheaped out on posting standard signs. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 2:50 PM Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Honestly, there is, and it's as Paul and I have described - you put the ref > in the ref tag and leave the name tag blank. This is how it has been in OSM > since pretty much day one. If a newbie in Europe puts a ref in the name tag, > it gets stomped on pretty quickly. > > The reason it might seem otherwise in the States is that the TIGER import > didn't populate the ref tag, just the name tag, and a lot of the TIGER > import still hasn't been cleared up. So there's a bunch of TIGER-derived > roads which have things like "name=County Road 23" (or Township Road, or "Co > Rd", or many other variations). OK, I'll add that to the things I look for. As I said, I'd been retaining it only when it's the only name, and I never added any new ways with that, merely refrained from repairing that case. It's encouraging that in this particular discussion, that's the only detail you guys say I got wrong. 'ref' tag on the way for the renderer; road route relation with detailed network and ref; never an alt_name or name_1, etc. with a route reference. Oh, and a further corner case: Are we agreed that something like "Old Route 7" has become a name? It's no longer a ref, because Route 7 is now elsewhere. It appears on street signs like any other name, not on a reference banner, and it's the 'addr:street' of the houses on it. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:20 AM Paul Johnson wrote: >> (1) The `name=*` field gets the road's actual name. If the road's only >> name is 'County Route 12' (New York consistently uses 'Route' rather >> than 'Road' for these), to the extent that `addr:street=*` will show >> that for the name, then `name=*` gets that name. (Yes I know that >> there are mappers who would prefer `noname=yes` in that situation, but >> address validation has an easier time with the way I do it.) > > > Please stop. This gets very annoying for data consumers (especially your > average joe just using a satnav). Fix your validation process instead. In my defense, there's nothing to stop. To the best of my knowledge, I've never added such a way, merely refrained from modifying that particular field from the TIGER import. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
Kevin Kenny wrote: > I think we can both agree that in practice there is no clear > consensus on what to do in the specific case where a road > has a reference but no other name. Honestly, there is, and it's as Paul and I have described - you put the ref in the ref tag and leave the name tag blank. This is how it has been in OSM since pretty much day one. If a newbie in Europe puts a ref in the name tag, it gets stomped on pretty quickly. The reason it might seem otherwise in the States is that the TIGER import didn't populate the ref tag, just the name tag, and a lot of the TIGER import still hasn't been cleared up. So there's a bunch of TIGER-derived roads which have things like "name=County Road 23" (or Township Road, or "Co Rd", or many other variations). This was never an active decision to do it this way; it's just that lots of TIGER hasn't been fixed, particularly the rural areas where unnamed County Roads are more common. Fixing this wouldn't be a bad thing for a mechanical edit to do. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:38 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:58 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > No, no. I'm not proposing addr:street on ways at all, only on things > that actually have an address. What I am saying is that noname=yes should > be a trigger to validators that they can't depend on the way to handle > address validation. Just saying that name=County Road 34, ref=CR 34 is > wrong; noname=yes; ref=CR 34 is the way to go. > > OK, and that's where we disagree - one important _suggestion_ that a > validator can make is to point out that there's no similarly-named way > anywhere nearby. At least once I've done the house numbers for a whole > street without remembering to change the name of the street from the > previous one I was working on, and I was glad that the validator > caught it before I uploaded! > > (If you're now going to tell me "don't make mistakes like that!" my > reply is, "Good luck with that one!") > > I think we can both agree that in practice there is no clear consensus > on what to do in the specific case where a road has a reference but no > other name. (That is intended as an entirely neutral statement - not > "Kevin's right" or "Paul's right") I disagree. The wiki had it pretty clearly documented that names aren't refs longer than I've been in the project. People putting refs as names is a more recent, value detracting, invention. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:58 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > No, no. I'm not proposing addr:street on ways at all, only on things that > actually have an address. What I am saying is that noname=yes should be a > trigger to validators that they can't depend on the way to handle address > validation. Just saying that name=County Road 34, ref=CR 34 is wrong; > noname=yes; ref=CR 34 is the way to go. OK, and that's where we disagree - one important _suggestion_ that a validator can make is to point out that there's no similarly-named way anywhere nearby. At least once I've done the house numbers for a whole street without remembering to change the name of the street from the previous one I was working on, and I was glad that the validator caught it before I uploaded! (If you're now going to tell me "don't make mistakes like that!" my reply is, "Good luck with that one!") I think we can both agree that in practice there is no clear consensus on what to do in the specific case where a road has a reference but no other name. (That is intended as an entirely neutral statement - not "Kevin's right" or "Paul's right") -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:46 AM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:09 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > addr:street= should be tagged anyway, and that's where you can put your > "County Route 34". Attempting to infer this based off the nearest street > should be a last resort because, at least in the US, it's not uncommon for > what the street's actually named and signed to be radically different than > the postal address's street name for simplicity or brevity's sake. > > I do that, too, when I do address points or building footprints. I > don't propose importing my county's address points (because of data > quality issues) or its building footprints (because of licensing > issues) so that happens manually on a catch-as-catch-can basis. If > you're proposing 'addr:street' on the way, that's fraught with another > set of issues - but I don't think that's what you're proposing. > No, no. I'm not proposing addr:street on ways at all, only on things that actually have an address. What I am saying is that noname=yes should be a trigger to validators that they can't depend on the way to handle address validation. Just saying that name=County Road 34, ref=CR 34 is wrong; noname=yes; ref=CR 34 is the way to go. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:09 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > addr:street= should be tagged anyway, and that's where you can put your > "County Route 34". Attempting to infer this based off the nearest street > should be a last resort because, at least in the US, it's not uncommon for > what the street's actually named and signed to be radically different than > the postal address's street name for simplicity or brevity's sake. I do that, too, when I do address points or building footprints. I don't propose importing my county's address points (because of data quality issues) or its building footprints (because of licensing issues) so that happens manually on a catch-as-catch-can basis. If you're proposing 'addr:street' on the way, that's fraught with another set of issues - but I don't think that's what you're proposing. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:49 AM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:09 AM Kevin Kenny > wrote: > >> (1) The `name=*` field gets the road's actual name. If the road's only > >> name is 'County Route 12' (New York consistently uses 'Route' rather > >> than 'Road' for these), to the extent that `addr:street=*` will show > >> that for the name, then `name=*` gets that name. (Yes I know that > >> there are mappers who would prefer `noname=yes` in that situation, but > >> address validation has an easier time with the way I do it.) > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:20 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > > Please stop. This gets very annoying for data consumers (especially > your average joe just using a satnav). Fix your validation process instead. > > I knew you were going to say that. The sentiment seems to run about > equally between 'fix the navigation software not to read the ref > twice,' and 'fix software that recognizes street addresses to deal > with the fact that an address of '2367 County Route 34' might need to > be translated to a ref=*'. > addr:street= should be tagged anyway, and that's where you can put your "County Route 34". Attempting to infer this based off the nearest street should be a last resort because, at least in the US, it's not uncommon for what the street's actually named and signed to be *radically* different than the postal address's street name for simplicity or brevity's sake. This solves both problems. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:09 AM Kevin Kenny wrote: >> (1) The `name=*` field gets the road's actual name. If the road's only >> name is 'County Route 12' (New York consistently uses 'Route' rather >> than 'Road' for these), to the extent that `addr:street=*` will show >> that for the name, then `name=*` gets that name. (Yes I know that >> there are mappers who would prefer `noname=yes` in that situation, but >> address validation has an easier time with the way I do it.) On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:20 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > Please stop. This gets very annoying for data consumers (especially your > average joe just using a satnav). Fix your validation process instead. I knew you were going to say that. The sentiment seems to run about equally between 'fix the navigation software not to read the ref twice,' and 'fix software that recognizes street addresses to deal with the fact that an address of '2367 County Route 34' might need to be translated to a ref=*'. Either one needs a modicum of natural-language processing to recognize that the street 'name' is actually a reference number - it's a question of whether data consumers that read 'addr:street' or ones that read 'name' have to do it. With the current state of the art, it seems safer to have redundant information - the worst case is the annoyance of "Turn right on County Route 34, County Route 34", rather than "I can't find the street address , 2367 County Route 34". In my mind, for this case, pragmatism trumps Platonism. I know that "a reference number is not a name," but don't have a better answer for "how do I deal with street addresses that use a reference number as a surrogate for a name on a road that's otherwise nameless?" We're agreed that if the street has a name, then the reference number should not be 'name_1' or 'alt_name' or anything like that - and I routinely delete those whenever I encounter them. `name="Balltown Road" ref="NY 146"` is correct for that case. (A possible exception is if E911 or the Postal Service insists on the ref as a name - but that's rare on a road that actually is named.) -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:09 AM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 9:51 AM Jarek Piórkowski > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 09:38, Rob Savoye wrote: > > > On 1/30/20 2:08 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > > > "County Road 12" is a ref. It is not a name. People often refer to > roads by > > > > their ref. That's fine. I will say "I'm taking the A3400 to > Stratford" > > > > > > I'm wondering if "CR 12" or "County Road 12" (the abbreviation > > > expanded) was the proper value for a ref. If the abbreviation is fine > > > for the ref, should it then have a name that is expanded ? The wiki > > > isn't clear. > > > > One solution I've seen advanced is that the ref in that case is just > > 12. But that rather raises more new questions than it answers, because > > while no one says "I'm going to take the Highways England A3400" or > > "the British A3400", people do say "I'm going to take County Road > > 12"... > > What I do: > > (1) The `name=*` field gets the road's actual name. If the road's only > name is 'County Route 12' (New York consistently uses 'Route' rather > than 'Road' for these), to the extent that `addr:street=*` will show > that for the name, then `name=*` gets that name. (Yes I know that > there are mappers who would prefer `noname=yes` in that situation, but > address validation has an easier time with the way I do it.) > Please stop. This gets very annoying for data consumers (especially your average joe just using a satnav). Fix your validation process instead. > (3) In the US, there are so many coincidences among numbered routes > that they're hard to work with unless you use `route=road` relations. > Moreover, there are a number of cases where one jurisdiction's route > crosses over into another jurisdiction's territory, but the owning > juristiction still maintains and numbers it. There are New York State > highways with portions in at least Connecticut, New Jersey and > Pennsylvania. Only a route relation can identify the state on NY 120A > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/108702747 where it's a New York > State highway on Connecticut soil. > (Note that its postal address is also Purchase, New York, and not > Fairfield, Connecticut, since its mail is delivered from the other > side of the state line. Confusion abounds.) > Ultimately this is the way forward, worldwide. ref on ways is a stupid way to describe routes and ultimately it's beyond time to kill that dinosaur (not to mention, precludes the way from having it's own ref, which every state-owned road in Oregon and Pennsylvania at a minimum, does). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 9:51 AM Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 09:38, Rob Savoye wrote: > > On 1/30/20 2:08 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > > "County Road 12" is a ref. It is not a name. People often refer to roads > > > by > > > their ref. That's fine. I will say "I'm taking the A3400 to Stratford" > > > > I'm wondering if "CR 12" or "County Road 12" (the abbreviation > > expanded) was the proper value for a ref. If the abbreviation is fine > > for the ref, should it then have a name that is expanded ? The wiki > > isn't clear. > > One solution I've seen advanced is that the ref in that case is just > 12. But that rather raises more new questions than it answers, because > while no one says "I'm going to take the Highways England A3400" or > "the British A3400", people do say "I'm going to take County Road > 12"... What I do: (1) The `name=*` field gets the road's actual name. If the road's only name is 'County Route 12' (New York consistently uses 'Route' rather than 'Road' for these), to the extent that `addr:street=*` will show that for the name, then `name=*` gets that name. (Yes I know that there are mappers who would prefer `noname=yes` in that situation, but address validation has an easier time with the way I do it.) (2) The `ref=*` gets 'CR 12'. This ref has to be short because that's what OSM-Carto will put in the box that labels the route. This `ref=*` is, in my mind, tagging for the renderer. (In the acceptable sense: it's telling the truth; but the truth that will render lacks full detail. It's lying to the renderer that's bad practice.) The more complete information has to go elsewhere, so read on. (3) In the US, there are so many coincidences among numbered routes that they're hard to work with unless you use `route=road` relations. Moreover, there are a number of cases where one jurisdiction's route crosses over into another jurisdiction's territory, but the owning juristiction still maintains and numbers it. There are New York State highways with portions in at least Connecticut, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Only a route relation can identify the state on NY 120A https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/108702747 where it's a New York State highway on Connecticut soil. (Note that its postal address is also Purchase, New York, and not Fairfield, Connecticut, since its mail is delivered from the other side of the state line. Confusion abounds.) For a county route, the relation will be tagged: type=route route=road network=US:NY:Saratoga ref=12 which also identifies what county labeled the route, letting a more sophisticated renderer add pictorial shields. Around here, on roads where the reference is the name, people usually will leave out the common noun 'highway', 'route', 'road' on the larger highways, referring to "Interstate 890", "US 9", "New York 7". On the county roads, their speech will be loose: if a driver were to give directions on "Route 74", "Schenectady County 74", or "County Route 74", none of those would raise eyebrows. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 8:38 AM Rob Savoye wrote: > On 1/30/20 2:08 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > > You asked this back in August and the answers still apply: > > That was as slightly different question about multiple names, and yes, > still applies. > > > "County Road 12" is a ref. It is not a name. People often refer to roads > by > > their ref. That's fine. I will say "I'm taking the A3400 to Stratford" > > I'm wondering if "CR 12" or "County Road 12" (the abbreviation > expanded) was the proper value for a ref. If the abbreviation is fine > for the ref, should it then have a name that is expanded ? The wiki > isn't clear. > ref=CR 12 would be the correct value. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 09:38, Rob Savoye wrote: > On 1/30/20 2:08 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > "County Road 12" is a ref. It is not a name. People often refer to roads by > > their ref. That's fine. I will say "I'm taking the A3400 to Stratford" > > I'm wondering if "CR 12" or "County Road 12" (the abbreviation > expanded) was the proper value for a ref. If the abbreviation is fine > for the ref, should it then have a name that is expanded ? The wiki > isn't clear. One solution I've seen advanced is that the ref in that case is just 12. But that rather raises more new questions than it answers, because while no one says "I'm going to take the Highways England A3400" or "the British A3400", people do say "I'm going to take County Road 12"... --Jarek ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On 1/30/20 2:08 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > You asked this back in August and the answers still apply: That was as slightly different question about multiple names, and yes, still applies. > "County Road 12" is a ref. It is not a name. People often refer to roads by > their ref. That's fine. I will say "I'm taking the A3400 to Stratford" I'm wondering if "CR 12" or "County Road 12" (the abbreviation expanded) was the proper value for a ref. If the abbreviation is fine for the ref, should it then have a name that is expanded ? The wiki isn't clear. - rob - ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
Rob Savoye wrote: > I was wondering about tagging roads properly. Previously it > was mentioned to use 'ref' for county roads, ie... "ref='CR 12'", > but as the road sign says "County Road 12", I was wondering > about the proper way to tag this. Should 'CR' be expanded in > the 'ref' to "County Road", or should 'ref' be 'CR 12', and then > "name='County Road 12'" ? This also applies to state Forest > Service roads as well that lack a name tag. I'm working on > cleaning up some ancient crap from the TIGER import... You asked this back in August and the answers still apply: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-August/047455.html "County Road 12" is a ref. It is not a name. People often refer to roads by their ref. That's fine. I will say "I'm taking the A3400 to Stratford" rather than "I'm taking Shipston Road, which becomes London Road, which becomes Stratford Road, which becomes Shipston Road again etc. etc.". There are signs that say A3400 and signs that say Stratford Road etc. That's fine too. It doesn't mean the name is A3400. It just means I'm using the ref in conversation. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
sent from a phone > On 30. Jan 2020, at 00:22, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Most taxi and pedicab drivers recoginise one or both of these names, > so I have used "name=Jalan Kimbim - Piramid", "alt_name=Jalan Kimbim", > "loc_name=Jalan Piramid". +1, adding all the variants/alternatives is the way to go. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On 1/29/20 3:07 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > In my hometown, the main road was California highway 96, so “ref=CA 96” > but we called it “Highway 96” so “name=Highway 96”. That's what I was thinking. Here we have a "name=highway 550", which is "ref=US 550", and another one is "name='Camp Bird Road', ref='CR 361', and "ref:usfs='FS 838'". I interpret the responses that for a road, (not an address) it should be "name=County Road 12" and "ref=CR 12". Most the addresses here use "addr:street='CR 12', but locals call it "Country Road 12", which is what the sign says. I'm just trying to get this right so I only have to fix it once. :-) - rob - -- https://www.senecass.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On 1/29/20 17:21, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > The road heads from here to Kimbim, then to Piramid. "Jalan" means way > (or path / road / street, and the verb means "to walk", "to travel"). > It's common for roads in Indonesia to be named by the places which > they connect, usually focusing on the further destinations We have a few of these around Houston, too: I think the legal name of part of Texas Highway 6 is Alvin-Sugarland Road, and if I remember right there's also an Aldine-Westfield Road, Humble-Westfield Road, and the Katy Freeway (which, interestingly, doesn't become the Houston Freeway as you get close to Katy). However, here, the names are consistent and that name on the sign is usually how mail is addressed. I can only imagine the chaos that ensues when there's no one legal name for the road as they apparently do it in Indonesia. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
Here in Indonesia there are very few official street signs, so I go by what is written on the signs of shops next to the street. For example, one of the main streets nearby has shops which say: * Jalan Kimbim No. ## * Jalan Piramid No. ## * Jalan Kimbim - Piramid No. ## I believe I've seen maps use either of these options. The road heads from here to Kimbim, then to Piramid. "Jalan" means way (or path / road / street, and the verb means "to walk", "to travel"). It's common for roads in Indonesia to be named by the places which they connect, usually focusing on the further destinations Most taxi and pedicab drivers recoginise one or both of these names, so I have used "name=Jalan Kimbim - Piramid", "alt_name=Jalan Kimbim", "loc_name=Jalan Piramid". Some street have no shops with signs, so I've just used what local people claim is the name of the street, if several people agree on the name. - Joseph Eisenberg On 1/30/20, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 1/29/20 16:17, Paul Johnson wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 4:07 PM Joseph Eisenberg >> mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> In my hometown, the main road was California highway 96, so “ref=CA >> 96” but we called it “Highway 96” so “name=Highway 96”. >> >> >> I think you're confusing name=* with addr:street=* in that case, Joseph. > > JOSM has a mode where it renders highway=* with a color based on the > name=* and nearby addresses with color based on addr:street=*. This is > useful for finding misspelled and abbreviated road names either in the > address or on the road itself. I've always thought name=* was to refer > to the name of the road as used in addresses, usually indicated on > street signs. Have I missed something? > > -- > Shawn K. Quinn > http://www.rantroulette.com > http://www.skqrecordquest.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] road names and refs
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 5:02 PM Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 1/29/20 16:17, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 4:07 PM Joseph Eisenberg > > mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > In my hometown, the main road was California highway 96, so “ref=CA > > 96” but we called it “Highway 96” so “name=Highway 96”. > > > > > > I think you're confusing name=* with addr:street=* in that case, Joseph. > > JOSM has a mode where it renders highway=* with a color based on the > name=* and nearby addresses with color based on addr:street=*. This is > useful for finding misspelled and abbreviated road names either in the > address or on the road itself. I've always thought name=* was to refer > to the name of the road as used in addresses, usually indicated on > street signs. Have I missed something? The name is only the name, it is not a ref or old_ref. This has even been in the wiki and normal practice for longer than I was even aware of the Names page. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only For street names as they appear in addresses, see addr:street instead. It's not uncommon at all for what gets put on the envelope is different than what's on the sign, or the value of addr:street= to not even be a street name but a highway number or even some internal route to whatever state postal system is present (such as RFD and RR addresses in the US). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On 1/29/20 16:17, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 4:07 PM Joseph Eisenberg > mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote: > In my hometown, the main road was California highway 96, so “ref=CA > 96” but we called it “Highway 96” so “name=Highway 96”. > > > I think you're confusing name=* with addr:street=* in that case, Joseph. JOSM has a mode where it renders highway=* with a color based on the name=* and nearby addresses with color based on addr:street=*. This is useful for finding misspelled and abbreviated road names either in the address or on the road itself. I've always thought name=* was to refer to the name of the road as used in addresses, usually indicated on street signs. Have I missed something? -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 4:07 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > should 'ref' be 'CR 12', and then "name='County Road 12'" > > Sure, if local addresses say “123 County Road 12” and local people say “I > live on County Road 12”. > > If the name is “Old County Road 12”, that would clearly be a name, not a > ref. > > In my hometown, the main road was California highway 96, so “ref=CA 96” > but we called it “Highway 96” so “name=Highway 96”. > I think you're confusing name=* with addr:street=* in that case, Joseph. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
> should 'ref' be 'CR 12', and then "name='County Road 12'" Sure, if local addresses say “123 County Road 12” and local people say “I live on County Road 12”. If the name is “Old County Road 12”, that would clearly be a name, not a ref. In my hometown, the main road was California highway 96, so “ref=CA 96” but we called it “Highway 96” so “name=Highway 96”. -Joseph Eisenberg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 1:29 PM Rob Savoye wrote: > I was wondering about tagging roads properly. Previously it was > mentioned to use 'ref' for county roads, ie... "ref='CR 12'", but as the > road sign says "County Road 12", I was wondering about the proper way to > tag this. Should 'CR' be expanded in the 'ref' to "County Road", or > should 'ref' be 'CR 12', and then "name='County Road 12'" ? This also > applies to state Forest Service roads as well that lack a name tag. I'm > working on cleaning up some ancient crap from the TIGER import... > Both of these would be noname=yes and ref=* ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] road names and refs
I was wondering about tagging roads properly. Previously it was mentioned to use 'ref' for county roads, ie... "ref='CR 12'", but as the road sign says "County Road 12", I was wondering about the proper way to tag this. Should 'CR' be expanded in the 'ref' to "County Road", or should 'ref' be 'CR 12', and then "name='County Road 12'" ? This also applies to state Forest Service roads as well that lack a name tag. I'm working on cleaning up some ancient crap from the TIGER import... -rob - -- https://www.senecass.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
