I think the convention and preference is to use the state code as a prefix. The data supports this. http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/cvJ --> ~1100 ways / rels with 'SH' or 'SR' prefix in ref http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/cvL --> ~11000 ways / rels with 'TX' prefix in ref Caution, latter query runs for more than a minute and returns a good 40MB of data!
I saved the results of the first query as a gist so we may repair those instead ;) https://gist.github.com/anonymous/7864216fcb3b55f2a8bd Best, Martijn On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 1:51 AM Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Sam Iacullo <sjiacu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The current setup for Texas State Highway ref tagging (See: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#Texas) >> There has already been some discussion as to what exists on the map ( >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2014-September/013604.html), >> but this was based on the majority of relations being incorrectly added >> into OSM. As per the Texas Department of Transportation, the ref should be >> "ref=SH ##" instead of the current "ref=TX ##". >> > > Don't do this! OSM convention for state highways is to use the state > abbreviation, not "SH" or "SR". This is done to disambiguate refs and make > it easier for renderers that are still using this obsolete tagging > convention rather than using route relations. Don't tag for the renderer, > but don't break it intentionally, either! > _______________________________________________ > 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
