<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05/08/2021 13:29, Mateusz Konieczny
via Talk-GB wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:MgLH_XT--7-2@tutanota.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">Would it be correct to describe it as covering the
same as unsigned_ref<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">"Indicates a route number that has assigned ref
that is not prominently signposted with<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">a reassurance marker."<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:unsigned_ref#Usage"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:unsigned_ref</a><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>The wiki page for unsigned_ref seems to define it as a ref that
_is_ signed, just not very well, which is somewhat confusing.</p>
<p>The original version of the page <br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:unsigned_ref&direction=prev&oldid=1095857">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:unsigned_ref&direction=prev&oldid=1095857</a><br>
</p>
<p>suggests that it was used a lot in the US, which makes sense
because a single road there can be part of both SR123 and SR345.
One of these may be signed, one not.</p>
<p>In GB, with regular highway numbering* (M, A, B and whatever
highway authorities assign that doesn't get signed) that doesn't
happen**. In many parts of the world ref signage may be below the
standard that's common in Central Europe and
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Barely_signed_road_reference_code.jpg">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Barely_signed_road_reference_code.jpg</a>
might actually be a "better sign than average" there.</p>
<p>You added "... or with barely visible signs" at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:unsigned_ref&direction=next&oldid=2114371">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:unsigned_ref&direction=next&oldid=2114371</a>
, and that significantly changes that pages meaning to no longer
reflect how the tag was previously used.</p>
<p>That said, some way of expressing "there are signs here, but they
are not very good" would be useful - but that's surely not
"unsigned_ref"<br>
</p>
<p>(somewhat offtopic example and question follows)</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8450999">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8450999</a> is a long distance
path around the Yorkshire Moors, that seems to have originated
from a book. Normally that's exactly the sort of thing that
shouldn't be in OSM ("someone wrote a book once" routes are
basically one up from "my personal favorite route around this
area"), but in this case it is signed - at least once, at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7235773122">https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7235773122</a> . That one sign
currently clears the threshold to get it shown on
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=17&lat=54.295465&lon=-0.83391">https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=17&lat=54.295465&lon=-0.83391</a>
, alongside the extremely well-signed Tabular Hills Walk.</p>
<p>What tagging (apart from e.g. "unsigned_ref", which I don't think
is a good answer here) have people used when signage exists and is
verifiable, but isn't really good enough to navigate by?</p>
<p>Best Regards,</p>
<p>Andy</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>* Ignoring E roads which are never** signed in the UK, and things
like tourist routes, and cycle and walking routes etc.<br>
</p>
<p>** at least I can't think of a single valid exception. Any in GB
that are tagged like that are probably in error.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>