So it's clear from the responses that there are differing needs here:
- Due to regional differences, displaying the two-letter USPS code in the shield is not necessarily desirable. For example, there are states where "SR" is more easily understood.
- At the conceptual level, the same string should not be used to represent the networks of multiple states, and some state-unique ID, be it the USPS two-letter abbreviation or otherwise, is needed.
Currently, the "ref" tag does double duty for both conceptual and rendering level concerns. That's the root cause of the problem here, and will continue to be, until the conceptual-level data is moved out of the "ref" tag into its own tag(s).
There is nothing stopping anyone from tagging state highways with conceptual-level tags this instant. One could, say, add "highway:network:us:fl=123" tags to Florida state highway 123, leaving the ref tag as "SR 123". Map users see something they're familiar with ("SR" instead of "FL"), and automated agents of OSM data get a unique key to identify the concept of "that network of highways in the US state of Florida". It's a win-win.
Of course, it would be desirable to have consensus on the syntax of the conceptual-level tag, be it "highway:network:us:fl=123", or "highway:network=us:fl:123", or "highway=fl:123", but that's a diversion from the crux of the issue, which is the overloaded use of the "ref" tag.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
