Re: [Talk-us] Consensus on SR for state route versus state abbreviation?
Just a random observation: containment in a state does not necessarily mean that a 'state highway' is a state highway of that state. There are a few spots in the Alleganies where NY-17 veers into Pennsylvania to avoid a mountain or river. It's still maintained by NYSDOT and signed with a New York highway shield. Calling it SR-17 would lose that information. If anyone cares. I may be veering into autism here. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Consensus on SR for state route versus state abbreviation?
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Kevin Kenny kken...@nycap.rr.com wrote: Just a random observation: containment in a state does not necessarily mean that a 'state highway' is a state highway of that state. There are a few spots in the Alleganies where NY-17 veers into Pennsylvania to avoid a mountain or river. It's still maintained by NYSDOT and signed with a New York highway shield. Calling it SR-17 would lose that information. If anyone cares. I may be veering into autism here. In fun, we call it Obsessive Compulsive OSM Disorder (OCOSMD). You're among friends. http://www.slideshare.net/chippy/you-know-when-you-are-addicted-to-osm-when http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_purity_self-test No disservice intended to those affected by actual conditions with similar names. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Consensus on SR for state route versus state abbreviation?
On 2012-09-12 7:14 PM, Clay Smalley wrote: It was mainly NE2 that went around changing everything to SR and SH. I'm pretty sure the consensus has always been the postal abbreviation. In Ohio, SR 123 is used on blade signage and other places where the state route shield isn't appropriate. I've seen SH 123 in plenty of similar situations in Texas. Vid the Kid and I did much of the original ref= tagging in Ohio. We originally used US:OH 123 for awhile before mostly switching to SR 123, long before NE2 took an interest in the state. In fact, NE2 started out by changing all the state routes to 123 and county routes to (123), which didn't last too long. So far, newer Ohioan mappers seem to have gone along with the SR 123 convention, while out-of-staters periodically attempt to disambiguate the ref= tags near state lines. So the current inconsistency between states is more of a conspiracy than a one-man crusade. :) -- Minh Nguyen m...@1ec5.org Jabber: m...@1ec5.org; Blog: http://notes.1ec5.org/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Consensus on SR for state route versus state abbreviation?
Concerning ref tags on ways, I don't think there's a need to impose nationwide consistency. I also don't think it's worth even adhering to a strict machine-parseable syntax (particularly dealing with overlaps) since that kind of information is much better organized in relations. That said, here are my ideal guidelines for formatting ref tags on single state highways: 1) If there is one clearly-popular abbreviation, such as M-xx in Michigan or possibly K-xx in Kansas, use it. 2) If a state has primary and secondary state routes, or numerous classes of state routes like Texas, the prefix should indicate the route class. 3) If a state allows its state routes to have the same number as a US or Interstate route in that state, a state-specific prefix (postal abbreviation or other as described above) should be used. 4) If a state is large (such that most places aren't near the borders) a generic prefix like SR or SH or STH (depending on preferred local terminology) may be used, notwithstanding guideline 3. 5) If a state's state route markers are generic (circle/oval or box) and don't specifically identify the state, a generic prefix or no prefix may be used, notwithstanding guideline 3. 6) Consistency within a state, or within broad regions of larger states, is probably still of value. A format should be chosen by consensus of mappers familiar with the state or region in question. 6a) As a mapper familiar with Ohio, I prefer SR xx, but would be amenable to OH xx or OH-xx. Slightly off-topic: A) I strongly prefer I-xx and not I xx (and definitely not Ixx) for Interstates. The hyphen enhances readability and reduces the chance of the I being mistaken for a 1. The reasons I've heard in support of I xx are: to match US and state routes (why does it have to?); to match European route designations (making apples look like oranges); because all the Interstates are already tagged as I xx (due to a few editors who value consistency a little too highly, plus I see that as a circular argument); changing it breaks renderers (nearly all renderers just pass a way's ref tag directly to the output, and those that do try to parse it can and should normalize tagging variations as a preprocessing step anyway). On the other hand, I would't argue against the format IH xx in Texas because most Texans I've encountered write it that way. B) When routes overlap, there is no right way to format the way's ref tag. I don't think any active renderers attempt to separate it into multiple values; considering this information can be stored with much better structure in relations, I don't think any programmer wants to bother with trying to parse a ref string anyway. That just leaves humans who will ever read it, and we can optimize for that. Brevity may be more important than technical correctness when a human is reading. Local understanding of routes' relative importance may play a role. The following equations demonstrate options to represent overlapping routes in a way's ref tag that seem perfectly sensible to me: US 1 + US 9 = US 1-9 I-70 + I-71 = I-70/71 US 40 + US 62 + OH 16 = US 40-62 I-74 + I-465 + (?) = I-465 I-95 + MA 128 = I-95/128 US 68 + OH 15 = OH 15 These little white lies are close enough to match the line on the map to the road on the planet. (Every good map has to lie in some way to convey information effectively.) If someone really wants to know which routes follow a particular way, they should examine the relation(s) that contain it. If a mapper really wants to make sure the correct, official truth is represented in the database, they should make sure all relevant route relations exist and are correct. Trying to squeeze all that information into a single string with a rigid syntax is optimizing for a use case that essentially doesn't exist. On Sep 12, 2012 8:59 PM, Charlotte Wolter techl...@techlady.com wrote: Hello all, ****Was there ever consensus on whether to use SR (or some variation on that) for state highways versus an abbreviation of the state name (CA or NY). I remember that there was discussion, but I don't remember if there was consensus. ****Thanks. Charlotte ** ** Charlotte Wolter 927 18th Street Suite A Santa Monica, California 90403 +1-310-597-4040 techl...@techlady.com Skype: thetechlady *The Four Internet Freedoms* Freedom to visit any site on the Internet Freedom to access any content or service that is not illegal Freedom to attach any device that does not interfere with the network Freedom to know all the terms of a service, particularly any that would affect the first three freedoms. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Consensus on SR for state route versus state abbreviation?
On 9/12/2012 11:19 PM, Richard Welty wrote: what i recall is that NE2 likes the appearance of bare route numbers and most of his ref tags have no prefix at all (see FL, PA, NJ among other states where he did a lot of this.) I've seen a number of people who put the bare number in the ref tag for state (and county?) routes. I don't understand that either. The good news is that once the Shields rendering implementation comes to the US, is that relations will be the order of the day and unambiguous. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Consensus on SR for state route versus state abbreviation?
David, I agree with much of what you said. However, I'm not sure why the size of a state should make a difference in what abbreviation is used. Large or small, shouldn't the state abbreviation be consistent? Also, in the B section, where you suggest US 1 plus US 9 could be abbreviated as US 1-9, I think that could be misleading. It is common to use a hyphen between numbers, such as 1-9, to signify 1 through 9. That's not what you meant. And the use of a slash would seem OK if the prefix always is there, the I or whatever state prefix applies. For example I 70/I 71 or I 95/MA 128. Otherwise, I think, there is potential for confusion. At any rate, I hope we can come to some kind of agreement on what to do about overlapping routes. Now we use semicolons to separate overlaping routes, but Potlatch 2 always flags those as incorrect. I corrected a bunch of those before someone told me that it's just a problem in Potlatch 2. So, it would be great if there were some clarity on that. Anyone? And, bring back the hyphen in interstate highway refs! Here's to I-10, which really does need a hyphen. So from now on I'll use state abbreviations and do relations, relations, relations. Charlotte At 11:57 PM 9/12/2012, you wrote: Concerning ref tags on ways, I don't think there's a need to impose nationwide consistency. I also don't think it's worth even adhering to a strict machine-parseable syntax (particularly dealing with overlaps) since that kind of information is much better organized in relations. That said, here are my ideal guidelines for formatting ref tags on single state highways: 1) If there is one clearly-popular abbreviation, such as M-xx in Michigan or possibly K-xx in Kansas, use it. 2) If a state has primary and secondary state routes, or numerous classes of state routes like Texas, the prefix should indicate the route class. 3) If a state allows its state routes to have the same number as a US or Interstate route in that state, a state-specific prefix (postal abbreviation or other as described above) should be used. 4) If a state is large (such that most places aren't near the borders) a generic prefix like SR or SH or STH (depending on preferred local terminology) may be used, notwithstanding guideline 3. 5) If a state's state route markers are generic (circle/oval or box) and don't specifically identify the state, a generic prefix or no prefix may be used, notwithstanding guideline 3. 6) Consistency within a state, or within broad regions of larger states, is probably still of value. A format should be chosen by consensus of mappers familiar with the state or region in question. 6a) As a mapper familiar with Ohio, I prefer SR xx, but would be amenable to OH xx or OH-xx. Slightly off-topic: A) I strongly prefer I-xx and not I xx (and definitely not Ixx) for Interstates. The hyphen enhances readability and reduces the chance of the I being mistaken for a 1. The reasons I've heard in support of I xx are: to match US and state routes (why does it have to?); to match European route designations (making apples look like oranges); because all the Interstates are already tagged as I xx (due to a few editors who value consistency a little too highly, plus I see that as a circular argument); changing it breaks renderers (nearly all renderers just pass a way's ref tag directly to the output, and those that do try to parse it can and should normalize tagging variations as a preprocessing step anyway). On the other hand, I would't argue against the format IH xx in Texas because most Texans I've encountered write it that way. B) When routes overlap, there is no right way to format the way's ref tag. I don't think any active renderers attempt to separate it into multiple values; considering this information can be stored with much better structure in relations, I don't think any programmer wants to bother with trying to parse a ref string anyway. That just leaves humans who will ever read it, and we can optimize for that. Brevity may be more important than technical correctness when a human is reading. Local understanding of routes' relative importance may play a role. The following equations demonstrate options to represent overlapping routes in a way's ref tag that seem perfectly sensible to me: US 1 + US 9 = US 1-9 I-70 + I-71 = I-70/71 US 40 + US 62 + OH 16 = US 40-62 I-74 + I-465 + (?) = I-465 I-95 + MA 128 = I-95/128 US 68 + OH 15 = OH 15 These little white lies are close enough to match the line on the map to the road on the planet. (Every good map has to lie in some way to convey information effectively.) If someone really wants to know which routes follow a particular way, they should examine the relation(s) that contain it. If a mapper really wants to make sure the correct, official truth is represented in the database,
Re: [Talk-us] Consensus on SR for state route versus state abbreviation?
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:57 AM, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com wrote: Concerning ref tags on ways, I don't think there's a need to impose nationwide consistency. I also don't think it's worth even adhering to a strict machine-parseable syntax (particularly dealing with overlaps) since that kind of information is much better organized in relations. Agreed but virtually no common tools actually use route relations yet. According to another message on this mailing list today we will finally get a rendering with shields based on relations up soon. So hopefully this is the beginning of a wider adoption of route relations. That said, here are my ideal guidelines for formatting ref tags on single state highways: 1) If there is one clearly-popular abbreviation, such as M-xx in Michigan or possibly K-xx in Kansas, use it. Most of the ones in Kansas are actually KS XX - might have something to do with me having done most of them and I consider national consistency to be of value :) B) When routes overlap, there is no right way to format the way's ref tag. I don't think any active renderers attempt to separate it into multiple values; considering this information can be stored with much better structure in relations, I don't think any programmer wants to bother with trying to parse a ref string anyway. That just leaves humans who will ever read it, and we can optimize for that. Actually, Mapquest does parse the ref tags to some degree. They strip out prefixes and only show numbers for state highways. I'm pretty sure they used to only strip out postal abbreviations but it looks like they've expanded the algorithm a bit to include other common values. They also parse out multiple values (possibly just up to two?) as seen here on both I-70/US40 and I-135/US81 although the US81 isn't rendered as a US highway shield for some reason like it is north of Salina where it no longer overlaps I-135: http://mapq.st/Pw6u5J Toby On Sep 12, 2012 8:59 PM, Charlotte Wolter techl...@techlady.com wrote: Hello all, Was there ever consensus on whether to use SR (or some variation on that) for state highways versus an abbreviation of the state name (CA or NY). I remember that there was discussion, but I don't remember if there was consensus. Thanks. Charlotte Charlotte Wolter 927 18th Street Suite A Santa Monica, California 90403 +1-310-597-4040 techl...@techlady.com Skype: thetechlady The Four Internet Freedoms Freedom to visit any site on the Internet Freedom to access any content or service that is not illegal Freedom to attach any device that does not interfere with the network Freedom to know all the terms of a service, particularly any that would affect the first three freedoms. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Consensus on SR for state route versus state abbreviation?
On 9/13/2012 1:15 PM, Toby Murray wrote: Most of the ones in Kansas are actually KS XX - might have something to do with me having done most of them and I consider national consistency to be of value I would agree with national consistency. There will always be contention - in SC, the DOT refers to state and county roads with an internal numbering system as SR-*-*; some of those appear on signs. But to the average motorist - all state routes are referred to as SC_* I wouldn't have a clue about how to ref the Texas Farm* roads ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Consensus on SR for state route versus state abbreviation?
On Sep 13, 2012 11:51 AM, Charlotte Wolter techl...@techlady.com wrote: David, I agree with much of what you said. However, I'm not sure why the size of a state should make a difference in what abbreviation is used. Large or small, shouldn't the state abbreviation be consistent? In most parts of a big state, one is surrounded by that state and no others, so state route is unambiguous. In a small state with many neighbors, there are always other states nearby, so disambiguation may be called for. Anyway, this particular guideline wasn't meant to carry a lot of weight. Also, in the B section, where you suggest US 1 plus US 9 could be abbreviated as US 1-9, I think that could be misleading. It is common to use a hyphen between numbers, such as 1-9, to signify 1 through 9. That's not what you meant. I've seen photos of single US route markers that literally say 1-9 in the interior. I have also seen people refer to combined US routes in this way. And to split hairs, a range of numbers should be written with an en dash, not a hyphen. And the use of a slash would seem OK if the prefix always is there, the I or whatever state prefix applies. For example I 70/I 71 or I 95/MA 128. Otherwise, I think, there is potential for confusion. Confusion because someone might read Interstate 128 when it's a state route? I'm sure that mistake is not new, and it still doesn't really interfere with a human matching the map to reality. I value brevity when writing refs for human consumption. In the context of agging ways, I assume the ref value is displayed unmodified to a human (if at all), so I choose to optimize for humans. At any rate, I hope we can come to some kind of agreement on what to do about overlapping routes. Now we use semicolons to separate overlaping routes, but Potlatch 2 always flags those as incorrect. I corrected a bunch of those before someone told me that it's just a problem in Potlatch 2. So, it would be great if there were some clarity on that. Anyone? The semicolon method is, in my opinion, just as valid for overlaps as the examples I provided; it's just not optimized for humans. Potlatch doesn't actually flag it as an error, but it thinks it might need to be checked (as if two different values were combined when ways were joined, and maybe only one value should apply). I think it just needs to be tweaked so mappers interpret it as a warning that can be OK as-is, and not an outright error. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Consensus on SR for state route versus state abbreviation?
Hello all, Was there ever consensus on whether to use SR (or some variation on that) for state highways versus an abbreviation of the state name (CA or NY). I remember that there was discussion, but I don't remember if there was consensus. Thanks. Charlotte Charlotte Wolter 927 18th Street Suite A Santa Monica, California 90403 +1-310-597-4040 techl...@techlady.com Skype: thetechlady The Four Internet Freedoms Freedom to visit any site on the Internet Freedom to access any content or service that is not illegal Freedom to attach any device that does not interfere with the network Freedom to know all the terms of a service, particularly any that would affect the first three freedoms. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Consensus on SR for state route versus state abbreviation?
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Charlotte Wolter techl...@techlady.comwrote: **Was there ever consensus on whether to use SR (or some variation on that) for state highways versus an abbreviation of the state name (CA or NY). I remember that there was discussion, but I don't remember if there was consensus. The postal abbreviation for the state name is the preferred method for state route refs on ways, though I would strongly encourage you to create a relation instead (unless you're correcting a not-state-code abbreviation outside of Texas...in which I'd still confirm there's an existing relation for the route). Texas is the notable oddball, thanks to having 7 state highway networks): TX only applies to State Highways (TX 18). Rec roads get (iirc) RR (RR 10), Farm/Ranch to Market get FM (FM 3075), Park roads get (iirc) PR (PR 10), Loops and Spurs get Loop or Spur (Loop 375, Spur 220), and and NASA routes get NASA (NASA 1). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Consensus on SR for state route versus state abbreviation?
Charlotte Wolter wrote: Hello all, Was there ever consensus on whether to use SR (or some variation on that) for state highways versus an abbreviation of the state name (CA or NY). I remember that there was discussion, but I don't remember if there was consensus. Thanks. I personally prefer using the state abbreviation (CA or TX), and when I fix the refs on highways using both, I set them all to the state abbreviation. Ideally, we'd all use route relations for this. Alexander ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Consensus on SR for state route versus state abbreviation?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Charlotte Wolter techl...@techlady.comwrote: **Was there ever consensus on whether to use SR (or some variation on that) for state highways versus an abbreviation of the state name (CA or NY). I remember that there was discussion, but I don't remember if there was consensus. The postal abbreviation for the state name is the preferred method for state route refs on ways, Michigan is a notable exception to these rules. State highways are all of the form M-nnn, *not* MI-nnn. - -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: APG v1.0.8 iQJDBAEBCAAtBQJQUTdJJhxLcmlzdGlhbiBNIFpvZXJob2ZmIDxrbXpAbGF2YWJp dC5jb20+AAoJELiB5WubzHR/plkP/2CqwcskxdAUIQYGAhKyY2sZb+jwOau5ULoF tbaFZW46Vou3PcJbojvGa+iH4reTc51A44J7qOEkzluAGVFdczIGCs2puSO5sybB O+9Xok7earbhuypBg9TY1C1Fl7On9rH5k19Ofs3nOm3nuC4NrLJfR75x4NV+oXtL xk9I+cNYtIrLR8GgG3vRv0wGQToTKMql0PsPQWc18/CeLddVRmVjrsUkglKjclDN /XiZQwW3zVwnrxuzcoMw35/mn1KFcwq8q0KeyCVOK+926ilMhr/QZ0T+OvzfGuH8 J5ywd+BhGctrqQuucIJaCWt0/s09RT8GoyUNUUtl47OlUvRVMLReaQF3KR8oWjia iniLtlB0cDTEA6+/TxD2NmzMXqHf399WnfFjC/3m0Z9EcSTVYaaAXGP6AlB72xhm nvsEWKWHyVT2itfJAPRH8AACQLQi7CuruvwQOz0H9+3b9m7s1++T0tnKrjOHMqGC h+V4VSduarfYllrmqybYy+1A87xrehzcWNIQ9jgugQmhP9urw9srpZtFFRVmOhXo A4yDlsx/KujVF/PP0IZ5fIb+c4KJ8vcEp6FM5V5uwbxltYSsfZEwaBHVPKJ7AeOS jA5qmIpN1kUMe6TojWWC8L2MBgML8FZ3LlUJxT/vyAc4PK6wdzijUJwtzWFBpYP1 jDTbOe99 =d0EA -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Consensus on SR for state route versus state abbreviation?
It was mainly NE2 that went around changing everything to SR and SH. I'm pretty sure the consensus has always been the postal abbreviation. On Sep 12, 2012 8:31 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff k...@lavabit.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Charlotte Wolter tec... **Was there ever consensus on whether to use SR (or some variation on that) for state highways versus an abbreviation of the state name (CA or NY)... Michigan is a notable exception to these rules. State highways are all of the form M-nnn, *not* MI-nnn. - -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: APG v1.0.8 iQJDBAEBCAAtBQJQUTdJJhxLcmlzdGlhbiBNIFpvZXJob2ZmIDxrbXpAbGF2YWJp dC5jb20+AAoJELiB5WubzHR/plkP/2CqwcskxdAUIQYGAhKyY2sZb+jwOau5ULoF tbaFZW46Vou3PcJbojvGa+iH4reTc51A44J7qOEkzluAGVFdczIGCs2puSO5sybB O+9Xok7earbhuypBg9TY1C1Fl7On9rH5k19Ofs3nOm3nuC4NrLJfR75x4NV+oXtL xk9I+cNYtIrLR8GgG3vRv0wGQToTKMql0PsPQWc18/CeLddVRmVjrsUkglKjclDN /XiZQwW3zVwnrxuzcoMw35/mn1KFcwq8q0KeyCVOK+926ilMhr/QZ0T+OvzfGuH8 J5ywd+BhGctrqQuucIJaCWt0/s09RT8GoyUNUUtl47OlUvRVMLReaQF3KR8oWjia iniLtlB0cDTEA6+/TxD2NmzMXqHf399WnfFjC/3m0Z9EcSTVYaaAXGP6AlB72xhm nvsEWKWHyVT2itfJAPRH8AACQLQi7CuruvwQOz0H9+3b9m7s1++T0tnKrjOHMqGC h+V4VSduarfYllrmqybYy+1A87xrehzcWNIQ9jgugQmhP9urw9srpZtFFRVmOhXo A4yDlsx/KujVF/PP0IZ5fIb+c4KJ8vcEp6FM5V5uwbxltYSsfZEwaBHVPKJ7AeOS jA5qmIpN1kUMe6TojWWC8L2MBgML8FZ3LlUJxT/vyAc4PK6wdzijUJwtzWFBpYP1 jDTbOe99 =d0EA -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org ht... ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Consensus on SR for state route versus state abbreviation?
Maybe we should allow NE2 back in here so he can also comment on this. Also, as far as I know, he had nothing to do with any SR tags in California, but I'm not 100% sure. --James ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Consensus on SR for state route versus state abbreviation?
On 9/12/12 11:05 PM, James Mast wrote: Maybe we should allow NE2 back in here so he can also comment on this. Also, as far as I know, he had nothing to do with any SR tags in California, but I'm not 100% sure. what i recall is that NE2 likes the appearance of bare route numbers and most of his ref tags have no prefix at all (see FL, PA, NJ among other states where he did a lot of this.) this was, of course, tagging for a particular mapnik rendering appearance. make your own judgements. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Consensus on SR for state route versus state abbreviation?
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote: what i recall is that NE2 likes the appearance of bare route numbers and most of his ref tags have no prefix at all (see FL, PA, NJ among other states where he did a lot of this.) this was, of course, tagging for a particular mapnik rendering appearance. make your own judgements. In his defence, he did just edit I 44 through my area, and the only tagging difference on ref=* (several tags were edited) was removal of a space in ref=I 44; OK 66 to be ref=I 44;OK 66 (and sacking is_in). Not entirely clear what the ultimate goal of the changeset was, but I didn't really see anything overtly wrong with it so I let it go. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Consensus on SR for state route versus state abbreviation?
On 9/12/12 11:24 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: what i recall is that NE2 likes the appearance of bare route numbers and most of his ref tags have no prefix at all (see FL, PA, NJ among other states where he did a lot of this.) this was, of course, tagging for a particular mapnik rendering appearance. make your own judgements. In his defence, he did just edit I 44 through my area, and the only tagging difference on ref=* (several tags were edited) was removal of a space in ref=I 44; OK 66 to be ref=I 44;OK 66 (and sacking is_in). Not entirely clear what the ultimate goal of the changeset was, but I didn't really see anything overtly wrong with it so I let it go. what i didn't say (and should have) was that he only does bare route numbers for state routes. as a software person, i dislike inconsistency in representations (prefixes vs no prefixes), but because there aren't strong controls over how ref tags are edited, it's something that has to be lived with, and code simply has to be robust enough to not break when presented with such things. i personally am slightly neutral on the nature of the state prefix. in NY, using the postal prefix makes lots of sense as everyone in this state knows exactly what you're referring to. but i grew up in Florida, and the SR prefix is the norm when referring to state highways there. MI and TX are unique of course, as others have posted in this thread. i don't know that a truly consistent US-wide concensus is actually achievable. i think i feel a longer essay about tagging (and what we're tagging for) coming on, but i'm not going to write it tonight. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
