As Richard pointed out, we need consistency. Here in Kansas state highways are generally referred to as "K-xx" however in OSM they are tagged with a ref of "KS xx" because I feel like being consistent is more important than how they look on osm.org.
And speaking of renderers, you will notice that the MapQuest Open tiles actually do show state-specific sunflower shields on Kansas highways. They are looking for two-letter state abbreviations in the way ref tag. I say this not as a suggestion that we tag for the MapQuest style sheet but just as a counter-point to "it looks ugly on osm.org" and to reinforce Richard's point that we need to think about data consumers in general. Toby On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:22 PM, stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: > On 3/10/14 11:07 PM, James Mast wrote: >> >>> I know that in some states that we don't add the state abbreviation >>> (and use 'SR' or 'SH'), and other states we don't add anything at all >>> expect just the number. >>> >>> > I'm just curious if anybody thinks we should try to get them all >> standardized on the ways. >> > > <redacted> > And then Richard Welty replied: > > > i would personally like to seem some consistency but i kind of >> stopped trying to advocate the position a while ago. it didn't seem >> like agreement was terribly likely and it was better to just continue >> to press on with building proper route relations. >> > > Offering my two cents, I'd like to see a move towards consistency in each > of the fifty states. In California, there was a move within OSM to prefix > County Roads with "CR " (and then the county road route ref, like "G2") as > well as prefixing State Routes with "SR" or "CA" (federal Buck Act > abbreviation for California). This was done inconsistently, and in mapnik, > makes CR and CA almost indistinguishable unless I squint. Please don't > make me squint, and please don't needlessly lengthen ref tags, which in > some cases (California a good example) makes them hard to distinguish, not > to mention ugly, too long and just plain wrong. > > A ref tag like "G2" says all it needs to say to anybody familiar with how > California breaks apart its County Road system into several multiple county > regions, grouping these with a letter, then suffixing with an integer > anywhere from a few to a couple dozen routes within that lettered system; > there is no need to prefix with "CR " as it is redundant (factually) and > ugly (in my opinion). Plus, signs say "G2" or "S19" not "CR G2" or "CR > S19". I can only guess these latter shields/ref tags are helpful for those > "not from around here." For those who are, these are just plain wrong. > > Plus, if I see simply "9" or "17" on a mapnik shield (small circle or > oval), I know those to be State Routes (highways) and I don't need "CA " to > prefix them. I believe it to be polite and correct for "I-5" or "I-210" to > appear on Interstates, even though all fifty states do not have any number > collisions between their state highways and (federal) Interstates. > > Martijn's relation pages are an excellent tool to find (and fix, where > desired or necessary) inconsistencies. > > I assume these guidelines (except for County Roads) are similarly true in > all fifty states, though I defer to local expertise outside of California. > > SteveA > California > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
