https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination says:
In the road system, the key destination=* describes the content of > signposts or ground writing indicating the names of the locations that the > tagged way is heading to. Thus navigation systems can refer to road signs > that the driver actually sees. So it should be what the road signs say, if the road signs say take this exit for XXX Suburb then destination=XXX so the router can announce what the road sign they are looking at says. If the road signs say exit for YYY Street, then destination=YYY. Destination could be other things too, eg. Airport Arrivals/Departures. I think the important thing is to map what's on the ground, ie. what the signs say. On 28 April 2018 at 12:20, Joel H. <joelh@cocaine.ninja> wrote: > I guess now my question is, do we need better definitions of the usage > of the destination tag? > > I saw back on that North Lakes intersection linked before > (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-27.24180/153.02459). That we had > the destination= tag filled with the Suburb. Shouldn't this be the road > name? Should we go by what is sign posted? Even then, on the Motorway it > isn't rare to see both a road name and locality signposted. > > Perhaps we should talk to the wider community about a tagging arrangement? > > A solution that I saw on the North Lakes intersection was to have > destination:street=. > > Should we at least improve the wiki a little bit? > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
