This sounds very sensible. Can/should it be extrapolated to cover other cases where the signposting (or lack of it) of a road number contradicts the official version? I am thinking specifically of B-roads which are still officially classified as such, and indeed frequently rendered as secondary (not just by OSM), where the road number was removed from the signs years ago (probably to discourage traffic)?
Example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/51.4083/0.2956 https://www.google.com/maps/@51.409452,0.298958,3a,75y,234.44h,78.06t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s-0NCD5FN6g3rpCZLcqhXQA!2e0?hl=en Highcross Road and Whitehill Road are both shown as B255, because that is what they officially are. On-the-ground evidence is that they are more tertiary (Whitehill Road) and "nasty windy country lane" unclassified (Highcross Road) and there is no sign of "B255" on any sign. Should we put B255 into official_ref here? --colin On 2014-08-13 00:58, Ed Loach wrote: > After previous discussions I've already changed the C road references that I > mapped (from roadworks signs) to official_ref, so your suggestion seems > sensible. I feel ref should be reserved for (permanently?) signposted > references. > > Ed > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [1] Links: ------ [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
