On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 5:21 AM, Peter <graphhop...@gmx.de> wrote: > Hi all, > > we've detecting more and more long names for highways, like I once > reported here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/karussell/diary/26055 > > One example: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/51109811 > > As discussed there the names are from official source, but should we > really include this in the name tag? >
Those look more like descriptions based on what Google's translating them as (since they seem to be route descriptions similar to what was badly imported from Oregon DOT in some parts of Oregon a couple years ago and not the working names of the road). Keep in mind that there are some *redonkulously* long values for name=* that are actually valid, though. Pretty much anything named after Martin Luther King, Junior is likely to result in a long name in the US, but some places tend to push this farther (Oklahoma, for example, has made it a policy recently to render highway naming irrelevant as it chops roads with formerly contiguous names into shorter sections with seemingly increasingly long names; with the longest ones usually being named after deceased veterans of the Afghan War and Iraq War from the city the highway got renamed in, ranging in length from a single overpass to an entire border-to-border highway).
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging