<div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature">> <span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">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"</span></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">Perhaps "ref:signed=poorly"? </span></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">I'm not a big fan of using "*:signed=*" with the value of what's on the sign like Colin suggested yesterday, it goes against how the *:signed namespace has been used so far. Perhaps betters tags would not "not:ref=*" or "was:ref=*" for when a roads ref changes but signs don't get updated immediately.</span></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 5 Aug 2021, 14:00 Andy Townsend, <<a href="mailto:ajt1047@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">ajt1047@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>On 05/08/2021 13:29, Mateusz Konieczny
via Talk-GB wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">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 href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:unsigned_ref&direction=prev&oldid=1095857" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">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 href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Barely_signed_road_reference_code.jpg" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">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 href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:unsigned_ref&direction=next&oldid=2114371" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">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 href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8450999" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">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 href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7235773122" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7235773122</a> . That one sign
currently clears the threshold to get it shown on
<a href="https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=17&lat=54.295465&lon=-0.83391" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">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>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-GB mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>