I personally don't consider adding prefixes as 'tagging for the map'. They are
VERY useful for routers as well. Plus, to be honest, there should be a way to
easily identify what type a route is, especially when it changes between
classifications, like {3} does several times. Especially if {3} changes at an
intersection to \3/ and you're coming into the intersection from the other
road. The router would then be able to announce the highway type for you so
you can even verify via the shield that you're making the correct turn.
Us mappers in the USA have embraced them. It allows people to notice with a
quick glance what route type it is without having to dig deep into the data and
find the relation. I mean, to be honest, how would you be able figure out what
type of route is which when you have the two different routes with the same
number on the same segment, if the ref was just "ref=74;74" on the map? [1]
(Blame the USA Congress for that one for getting it written into law. I-74
there really should have been another number, like a southern I-79.) Even
countries in Europe are embracing the 'prefixes', where you see 'M' for
Motorway, 'E' for Euro-routes, etc, when needed in OSM.
Honestly, I think Ontario should come out of the 'dark ages' and use prefixes
as well, but I'm not going to go around spam adding the 'ON' to the ref tags
and get blocked, because of it being against the CA communities wishes (at this
time).
Also, if all (or at least most) of the Ontario editors would agree on adding
the 'ON' to the ref, maybe MapQuest in their 'Open' maps would start rendering
the BGS Ontario shield (would look better on the map because the number would
be bigger than if using the standard stand-alone shields) on the map for those
routes, just like they have done for all of the US state highways. [2] They
base the rendering of shields off of the 'ref' tag, not relations, mainly
because most states don't have all of their relations done yet either (all US
highways and Interstates in all states are already done).
-James
[1] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48876018
[2] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/40.7927/-80.1367&layers=Q
> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 22:00:59 -0400
> From: scr...@gmail.com
> To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ref tags in Ontario
>
> Hi Kevin
>
> > Andrewpmk (almost entirely him) and I reversed all of the ON prefixes
> > to the 400-Series highways
>
> Many thanks to you both for doing that.
>
> > Personally I don't think there should be any prefix for rendering or
> > navigation purposes, but I guess it depends on whether you think
> > county or regional road prefixes should be there for navigation or
> > rendering purposes.
>
> Prefixes are definitely 'tagging for the map', so shouldn't happen,
> IMBO. Ontario's got a fairly robust boundary, so the relations should
> sort out what road is in what province.
>
> cheers
> Stewart
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
