I've noticed that many minor roads in the Highland Region of Scotland have
been tagged with ref=[CU] based on a PDF document from the regions
transport department. I've altered a few of these where I've encountered
them to official:ref=* as I don't believe that these are verifiable on the
I've noticed the same thing in Kent.
However, isn't the issue more about the renderers and routing rules knowing
that C-number roads are never signposted?
Therefore, you don't tell people to turn right onto the Cxxx, but to take the
third right turn.
The official documents won't distinguish
There are plenty of things in OSM which are not verifiable on the
ground. That in itself is not a reason to disqualify it from OSM or
relegate it to second class information. It's more about the fact that
there is a verifiable source of authoritative information (appropriately
licensed of
Yes, I believe in some cases they are signposted: in which case a ref=* is
entirely appropriate.
W.r.t other commenters, I do not believe that it is the role of OSM to hold
internal identifiers, however authoritative, for any object as a matter of
course. Certainly they should not be placed in
On 2013-03-17 14:02, sk53.osm wrote:
Yes, I believe in some
cases they are signposted: in which case a ref=* is entirely
appropriate.
W.r.t other commenters, I do not believe that it is
the role of OSM to hold internal identifiers, however authoritative, for
any object as a matter of
SK53 wrote:
I'd be interested in what others think (these council based refs do
appear elsewhere in the country: I can't recall ever seeing one on
a road sign).
I agree very, very strongly that unsignposted C-road numbers (or U, or D, or
E, or whatever) should not be placed in the ref tag.
Apart from C, D, U etc roads, there are also many A and B roads which
officially have a number but that number isn't signposted anywhere.
For example in Derby, there is the A601 (Inner Ring Road), A5194
(London Rd) and B6000 (road to railway station). I'm fairly certain
there isn't a single
On 17 March 2013 09:54, sk53.osm sk53@gmail.com wrote:
I've noticed that many minor roads in the Highland Region of Scotland have
been tagged with ref=[CU] based on a PDF document from the regions
transport department. I've altered a few of these where I've encountered
them to
On 17/03/2013 19:02, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
I would say that altering our tagging to avoid these numbers appearing
on maps or in directions is to a large extent tagging for the render /
router. The reference number *is* C616.
Maybe in these cases some way of indicating to data
Someoneelse wrote:
Could that, or something more appropriate to road reference
numbers, be used here?
Ah, déjà vu.
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-May/011628.html
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Just a note to mention that this is being repeated on Saturday mornings on BBC2
and of course now on iPlayer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0078y2t/Map_Man_Series_2_Bartholomews_Cycling_Map_of_England_and_Wales/
A must see for map, walking, cycling, history, geography enthusiasts or
11 matches
Mail list logo
