On 13 August 2014 12:19, Tom Hughes <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13/08/14 11:54, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > >> When it comes to U-numbers for unclassified roads, I can see that they >> usually add unnecessary clutter to the map. So while they may be >> useful to see at times, I'd be in favour of them not being displayed >> on the default style. But I think this is a renderer issue -- perhaps >> someone should submit a ticket to have ref=* not rendered on >> highway=unclassified if there is a name=* present. > > You appear to be drawing some sort of distinction between C and U numbers > here, and maybe that works for your authority, but I don't think it's in any > way universal.
Yes that probably is tainted by the Local Authorities I'm most familiar with. Perhaps a better way of thinking about it would be in terms of the OSM classification. Where I talked about U-numbers, it might be better to read it is any reference numbers on roads that are not tagged as highway=tertiary or higher. And similarly C-numbers would be any reference numbers present on highway=tertiary tagged roads. Regardless of how the numbers are tagged, I would still maintain that the benefits of having reference numbers shown to users on highway=tertiary roads (in terms of allowing them to cross-reference the map to official documents) outweighs the drawbacks (extra cluttering is minimal, and the fact that they're not signed on the ground in the UK should be easy to get used to). However, I think the extra drawback of increased cluttering tips the balance the other way on highway=unclassified, and others (residential, service, living_street, etc.). Robert. -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
