Hi Petra,
I delete names like on example (2) on sight, it is confusing to give something
a name that doesn’t actually have one, or it may be contested and also confuses
most routing systems trying to produce meaningful directions and displays on
GPS.
I’ve never seen case (1) and it looks pretty, ..meh.., and should be deleted in
the same way as type (1) unless you can actually find a street-sign bearing the
name, which I doubt exists. Looks like mapping for the renderer.
For example (3) there is a choice, remove the name and leave as a link (of the
higher class road) or alternatively change the road type to that of the minor
road. So either “highway=residential”,”name=Jennings Street” or
“highway=tertiary_link” will do. I would look at imagery to decide between the
two as to which better resembles what is on the ground. There seems to be a
slip lane on the street turning into Jennings Street, so I would go with
“highway=tertiary_link”.
Alex
From: "Petra Rajka - (p)" <petra.ra...@telenav.com
During our mapping in Australia we’ve discovered that several road links have
name. Usually there are 3 cases:
* links take name from the upcoming road with the extra
Onramp/Offramp/Exit prefix
ex. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4972970
* links take name from the upcoming road exactly as it is
ex. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/15958927
* links (or other way categories) between dual carriageways take the
name from one of the adjacent roads
ex. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172829556
In our mapping process we use this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link where it’s specified that
links shouldn’t have name, so we are wondering if there are any local
rules/conventions regarding this in Australia? Should the links have name? It’s
a particularity we didn’t found until now.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
