On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:34 AM, Minh Nguyen <m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us> wrote: > On 16:04 2014-03-11, Peter Davies wrote: >> >> I thought I would make my proposal stand out a bit more by adding words >> to the title. :-O >> >> There are some weird things, like Nebraska's state law that requires >> NDOR to have a state road link to every community of a 100 people or >> more. I've changed some "Link 80F" ref tags to "NE 80F Link" and "Spur >> nnX" tags to "NE nnX Spur" without having time to do the whole state. >> >> AZ has its "Loop 101" and "Loop 202" freeways for which I would advocate >> refs "AZ Loop 101" and "AZ Loop 202". >> >> Texas also has many weird qualifiers on minor state routes but as I've >> never contracted there for 511 I'm not totally familiar with them. >> >> Peter > > > As others have mentioned, we already use unique two-letter state > abbreviations as part of relations' network tags. I created a bunch of > network=US:OH:LOG:Zane route relations last night (Zane Twp., Logan Co.) and > I'm intent on keeping the ways' ref tags a bit shorter than that. > > For all I know, Ohio's DOT could be an outlier, but they use "SR 123" > notation exclusively, including on variable message signs [1] and at their > traffic website OHGO [2]. > > I've firmly of the opinion that ways' ref tags should not always be > considered uniquely identifiable. For something like a traffic reporting > application, ways' ref tags should be at most a fallback in the absence of > route relations. On the other hand, less qualified refs may be more useful > in narrated directions: "Turn left at Link 80F" would be preferable to "Turn > left at NE 80F Link." Why bother telling me what state I'm in as I approach > the intersection? > > It's unnecessary to cram more qualifiers and a rigid syntax into a single > field when our data model has much more appropriate facilities for this > information. Insisting on uniformity on ways' ref tags only invites data > consumers to make poor assumptions. There's a CA 50 in Cantabria, Spain, > after all. [3]
I've been saying this for years, but perhaps not quite as clearly. > That said, I don't find a particularly strong case for leaving bare numbers > in ways' ref tags. How about when the actual route marker is generic? A few states here and there use the plain circle for their state routes. A few New England states use a plain square or rectangle. To me this is a clear parallel with Europe, which tends to use rectangles, and whatever's written in the rectangle gets put in the ref tag as-is. I wouldn't object to this practice, as long as it's only used for states where the official route marker is a plain circle/oval or square/rectangle with no clear state identifier on it. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
