Hi all, I wanted to get an opinion on the right place for 'ref' tags on numbered routes.
>From what I understand, osm2pgsql and the downstream rendering process uses the ref tags on the way object to render highway 'shields'. The following example corroborates this. Consider this (long) way: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/13649057 See how this segment has no 'shields' on the map because the way itself has no ref tag: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.5419&lon=-89.4744&zoom=13&layers=M Even though the way is part of the properly tagged relation http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/23246 I see two issues here: 1) Information already present in the relation object being duplicated on the way to satisfy the renderer 2) Incomplete coverage of ref information on ways I don't think we can solve 1) in the short term. There are likely many, many numbered route networks in the world that are poorly covered by relations, because the renderer does not encourage it, because relations were introduced after a lot of numbered routes were already tagged before the arrival of relations, because the wiki is ambiguous, perhaps other reasons. There are perhaps a few thousand ways in the U.S. that are part of a numbered route, yet do not have ref tags on the way. My question is: how should we deal with these? My proposal is to 'fill the gaps' by manually tagging these ways using the existing conventions for route relation ref tagging ('US 98', 'I 20', 'MS 467', etc.) wherever this information can be derived from an existing route relation. We have folks here at Telenav willing to spend some cycles on this, but I want to see if this is a sane approach before we do anything. -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us