Given that it's not customary or advisable to reproduce ref in the name field, kinda think that's not the worst policy for old_ref=* situations that have no name, as well by extension, but that's a bit more of a grey area still.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:14 PM Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree. > > Proof of this is that a section of road which was formerly US Highway 99, > but where the highway ref is now on a new bypass, will often by signed as > “Old Highway 99”, so it’s reasonable to say that the name=* was “Highway > 99” before. > > -Joseph Eisenberg > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 12:01 PM Martin Koppenhoefer < > dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> sent from a phone >> >> > On 31. Jul 2020, at 18:25, Jmapb <jm...@gmx.com> wrote: >> > >> > But most of the ways in the route have no valid name. Segments were >> > imported from TIGER with name=State Highway 214 but that's been removed >> > in favor of ref=NY 214. >> >> >> around here we keep both, no need to remove the name if it makes sense. >> State Highway 214 looks like a reasonable name, especially outside of >> builtup areas. >> >> Cheers Martin >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
