On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:10 PM, David ``Smith'' <vidthe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Oct 24, 2012 12:25 AM, "Andrew Errington" <erringt...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Richard Welty <rwe...@averillpark.net> >> wrote: >> > this is why i don't put New York State Reference Route numbers in the >> > ref tag, i put them in ref:unsigned which isn't rendered. >> >> Isn't that simply tagging for the renderer? And doesn't this just mean >> >> "I put them in ref:unsigned which isn't rendered... >> >> ...yet. >> >> or >> >> ...by this particular renderer. > > Who would make a renderer that renders the value of a key like > "ref:unsigned"?
Probably no-one, because it's not documented. > A roadgeek probably, but I think such a rendering > stylesheet should differentiate between signed and unsigned refs. Anyway, > using something like "ref:unsigned=OH 315C" to mean "this road is part of > Ohio state route 315C but the signs don't say so" sounds perfectly sane to > me. It doesn't sound sane to me. Either the road has the reference, or it does not. I don't think it's relevant whether it's included on a sign or not. > Richard didn't say he uses that key *because* it's not rendered; he > uses it because it makes sense. The fact that it's not rendered on > general-purpose maps justifies the view that the tag won't cause problems. It's not rendered because nobody knows about it. There are only 36 instances of ref:unsigned in the whole world, so it probably was not a good example to use. Anyway, shouldn't it be reg_ref (Regional reference) instead? Or a relation? Best wishes, Andrew _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
