Someone in the Valley Forge area also tagged refs on a LOT of four-digit State Routes that aren't signed...seems like this belongs in a relation with unsigned_ref and the ref should be unsigned_ref. Yes, I know they're on the bridge placards and what not, but there's no route shields on these.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:58 PM, James Mast <[email protected]> wrote: > Same thing goes with Florida. Just the state outline. > > Heck, in Pennsylvania, originally on BGS's before we started to use the > Keystone shield, we used the 'PA' abbreviation (one such sign that still > stands [1]). However, now on the little white reference mileage signs [2] > that PennDOT posts on roads they maintain, it says 'SR' (even on > Interstates). However, PennDOT recently posted a nice little gem on PA-28 > @ Exit #6 going both directions that goes back in time and mentions the > 'PA' on the sign. [3] There are at least 3 of these signs (2 going SB, at > least 1 going NB). > > -James > > [1] - http://goo.gl/maps/RsXme > [2] - http://goo.gl/maps/ARr9s > [3] - http://youtu.be/W3xI5Y8eRk4?t=2m1s (the video needs to be paused > right here @ 2m1s to see the sign clearly) > > > ------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 00:55:13 -0500 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] State highway refs (was Re: New I.D Feature) > > In Georgia, (almost?) all state roads are signed with the state outline > and the highway number, but no "GA" or "Georgia" text with it. Occasionally > you might see "State Road" or "State Route" printed on the sign in addition > to the state outline. In some very rural areas, I think there might still > be a few un-logoed signs, but probably not many. > > -jack > > On November 30, 2014 5:58:53 PM EST, Minh Nguyen < > [email protected]> wrote: > > On 2014-11-30 10:41, stevea wrote: > > My two cents: I must say that here in California, I've made it a habit > to remove the "County Route" designation (CR) which precedes a ref > number in our County Route system. For example, NE2 (a banned-from-OSM > former contributor for those unfamiliar with that history) entered ref > tags for many G2, N1... county routes as "CR G2" and "CR N1." That, in > my opinion, is so redundant (as G and N and A and S... are well-known > multi-county/regional-within-California county highway networks) as to > be true clutter. People in California do know (and routing software, > renderers... SHOULD know) that A1, G2, N4 and S16 are county routes in a > lettered system where each letter represents a cluster of counties...at > least in California. > > > Some northwest Ohio counties post shields along section line roads that > say A, B, C, etc. So far I've been tagging them like "CR A", even though > you'd be hard-pressed to find that style anywhere outside of OSM. > Instead of reducing ambiguity, I wonder if the "CR" may cause very mild > confusion, for example when a router tells its user to turn onto "CR R". > > Also, while "SR" (for "State Route" in California and other states) is > still legally correct, I still might change for consistency's sake any > "SR" prefix I see in a highway route relation ref tag to be "CA" > instead. So, while "SR 17" is correct, I much prefer "CA 17" and will > change it to that if I see SR in a California highway route relation ref > tag. > > > Yes, usage is different in California. I've only ever seen "SR" on > signage a few times, in rather obscure places. But in Ohio, it's ubiquitous. > > I agree with what we (as OSM volunteers entering/editing data in our > map) now do, as well as what map styles/renderers and routing engines > do, as Minh notes above: "recognize the state abbreviation, SR or SH." > Yes, Michigan still has its M- routes, and I think OSM (both its human > editors and software components) should just learn to cope with that > (plus perhaps a few other states) as exceptions to this largely (though > not completely) applicable rule. I believe we are pretty much there, > but we still have edge cases, data in the map and newer contributors who > are not completely familiar with these conventions in the USA. > Discussing it here helps, though wiki documentation and taginfo data > which are consistent across > the fifty states is better. > > > My response to anyone who wants more consistency is that route relations > are the way forward. They may be painful now but they make the data a > lot less subject to interpretation. > > > -- > Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. > _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
