As an aside, C roads are really eccentrically designated, at least if their osm tagging is correct.
e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.9256&lon=-1.3605&zoom=14&layers=M Re. the C351.... WTF? Nick -----Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote: ----- To: "talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)" <[email protected]> From: Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> Date: 18/05/2011 11:05AM Subject: [Talk-GB] C roads I note an increasing number of roads tagged with ref=C<number>: http://osm.org/go/euF7qf93- http://osm.org/go/eu6CM0IS- etc. Leaving aside for now the question of sourcing, I feel a little uneasy about these being rendered on the map. Anyone using the map as, well, a navigational aid will think "turn left onto the C94... oh... hang on... what C94?". So if we are to have such arcana in the database, and experience suggests you can't actually stop people adding arcana to OSM (I guess that's one of our strengths ;) ), it would be helpful to have some way of tagging "this ref is not actually signed". That way, renderers and routers could choose not to show refs which aren't helpful for their audience. Something like ref:signed=no would work. Any thoughts? cheers Richard _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
