<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN">
<html><body style='font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif'>
<p><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On 2013-03-17 14:02, sk53.osm wrote:</span></p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding-left:5px; border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px; width:100%">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div> </div>
Yes, I believe in some cases they are signposted: in which case a ref=* is entirely appropriate. <br /><br /></div>
W.r.t other commenters, I do not believe that it is the role of OSM to hold internal identifiers, however authoritative, for any object as a matter of course. Certainly they should not be placed in tags whose usage is widely used for both renderers and many other applications (For instance, I don't want navit to tell me turn left into <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/187103578">U1699 MacNaughton Crescent</a>). Otherwise we'll start putting NLPG ref=* on every address, or if copyright permits, OSGB TOIDs on every object. Surely we aim to create our own map, not some copy of what the council holds.<br /><br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>Our map is a synthesis of many, many sources - that's part of the power of OSM. Facts are facts, so it shouldn't be a surprise that they are the same on different maps. Either the road IS the A123, or it isn't. How that gets rendered/used depends which source domain you choose to reflect in the ref tag. The power to number roads (in the sense we are talking about here) is vested in some body; if they say it is the A123 then that's the end of the story from that point of view. The wiki page for ref=* suggests using official_ref=* for the authoritative information when this differs from the evidence on the ground.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding-left:5px; border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px; width:100%">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div> </div>
A secondary consideration is that we know that many of these 'authoritative' sources contain errors, both of commission and omission (I've blogged about several types of these). Like OSM and OSGB data, I am sure local council data are also prone to time-based degradation. A significant service which OSM can provide is a second independent look at the geography of Britain.<br /><br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>Surely the point of having an authoritative source, is that is cannot contain errors - it IS the truth, by definition. It can contain unintended values, but that's different. If the highways authority has resolved to reclassify a road, but has omitted so far to reflect that in the database, then a truly authoritative database would still be correct; it can only be an "error" if you say that the highways committee minutes are authoritative and the database is merely a derivation. My argument here is one of definition and semantics, but I think that's quite important when the information providers and consumers need to understand each other unambiguously.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Can you give links to your blogs?</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding-left:5px; border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px; width:100%">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
I'm also interested in the criteria that Highland use to classify roads as tertiary or minor.<br /><br />The <a href="http://osm.org/go/e4rnunoQ--">road to Acharacle School</a> is a tertiary, but in fact is a short stub only serving the school. I'm not sure that using the council's classification (which may have much more to do with road maintenance, width etc., than the traffic distribution network) is most suitable for achieving a reasonably consistent road classification in OSM for the UK. (This is a different and much more complex issue, just look at Spain where every Community has felt the need to create its own road classification system).<br /><br /></div>
Jerry</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br /><br />
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Derick Rethans <span><<a href="mailto:derick@derickrethans.nl">derick@derickrethans.nl</a>></span> wrote:<br />
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 .8ex; border-left: 1px #ccc solid; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">"sk53.osm" <<a href="mailto:sk53.osm@gmail.com">sk53.osm@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br /><br /> > I've noticed that many minor roads in the Highland Region of Scotland<br /> > have<br /> > been tagged with ref=[CU]#### based on a PDF document from the regions<br /> > transport department. I've altered a few of these where I've<br /> > encountered<br /> > them to official:ref=* as I don't believe that these are verifiable on<br /> > the<br /> > ground in any way.<br /> ><br /> > I'd be interested in what others think (these council based refs do<br /> > appear<br /> > elsewhere in the country: I can't recall ever seeing one on a road<br /> > sign).<br /><br /></div>
</div>
I have seen one somewhere in Cornwall, so I don't think we can rely on the renderer to decide whether to show it.<br /><br /> Your approach with official:ref for anything not signposted and normal ref for signposted C roads seems best to me.<br /><span class="HOEnZb"><span style="color: #888888;"><br /> Derick<br /><br /> --<br /><a href="http://derickrethans.nl">http://derickrethans.nl</a> - <a href="http://xdebug.org">http://xdebug.org</a><br /> Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: <a href="http://xdebug.org/donate.php">http://xdebug.org/donate.php</a><br /> twitter: @derickr and @xdebug<br /></span></span></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<pre>_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
<a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
</body></html>