<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [Talk-us] State ref tags on
ways</title></head><body>
<div>Getting to a "finish" on what has developed and exists
regarding "shields" (guessed/inferred to mean the active
project MapQuest Open uses) would seem to disambiguate that. It
seems a tall order, doable, but tall.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>We currently contract with 12 state DOTs
that include and are spread between CA and ME, and have in the past 10
years contracted with over 20 states that are spread from (and
include) AK and FL, in respect of 511 information systems. All
of them accept the consistent use of <b>2-letter ISO codes</b>
for naming their state (non-US and Interstate) routes. The 2-letter
codes are part of 2+2-character ISO codes from ISO standard 3166-1 or
3166-2. The identical 2-letter codes are also an ANSI standard
INCITS 38:2009. Finally, the same 2-letter codes are used
by the United States Postal Service and are well known to most
Americans who still send letters and parcels. Only the US
Coastguard uses different codes, and not many people have ever heard
of them.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>That's a fun history. Let's be careful (discussion is good)
how or whether OSM truly consistently uses ISO codes and how
"California" does things. Please recall that the two
(California and USA) are distinct. It might go there, in fact it
could be even better than that. Oh, Buck Act zones (like ZIP
codes) are not needed for mail delivery in the fifty states, just ask
the USPS. Sending non-domestic works, too.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Perhaps excellent, clear data in OSM (that is what we are) is
exactly what is required. There may be renderers up the chain
that make sense of it, or not. It depends. The whole chain
working works.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000">If you label routes
as "SH" or "SR" or "TH" (i.e. Truck
Highway) then you create duplicate routes in adjacent states.
Occasionally states number state routes consistently across
state lines, but mostly they do not. So "SR nn" is ambiguous
on regional maps. This is a potentially big problem for info systems
and navigation systems. If we send out an alert for "SH 20"
over a national or regional channel, we can spread disinformation very
easily. So please don't imagine that OSM is just about map
rendering. We live in an age of electronics, texts, tweets,
emails, etc., and not just colored images of maps on paper or screens.
PLEASE can't we use the official ISO and ANSI codes rather than
following sloppy, ambiguous local customs? </font></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>It's a valid question. Then, there might be exceptions for
which logic might need to be coded. Depending on how smart the
robot needs to act. Humans know what we mean by statewide refs
and labelling, why can't our maps? They can. They don't
quite (yet) seem to today. In a way everybody agrees to.
For all robots. That's work, and at least a few hills to climb!
Hills are surmountable.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000">If we follow local
habits, CA residents refer to "Route 5" rather than I-5,
"Route 50" rather than US 50, and "Route 99"
rather than CA 99. But our customer in Sacramento (who has
worked for Caltrans for many years) does not advocate dumping "I
" or "US" or "CA" prefixes, which make each
route unique. </font></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>It sounds like the emergence of a sort of harmony here.
Though, recall that not everybody is a resident. Many are simply
one of the people.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000">I can make an
analogy with people's use of "St." We don't accept
"St." in OSM even though it's used by almost everyone
because it's sloppy and ambiguous. Does St. Paul have a St. Paul
St.? I don't know, but if it did we would write it unambiguously
in OSM as Saint Paul Street. PLEASE do not use ambiguous naming
of state highways then! Find all the SH and SR s etc and make
them unambiguous. Please?</font></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Making something unambiguous means making it specifically
grammatical first. Again, a tall order. But the tone here
feels hopeful. Simply asking "let's all not make it
ambiguous" begs us to make it unambiguous.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000">I have no idea why
the convention of leaving out half the ref in the relation has been
adopted. Just writing "5" instead of "I 5" is in
my view pointlessly inconsistent. Most states have an "SH
5". Why create relations that are fundamentally confusing
because of laziness? Can anyone tell me a reason why ref
contains a different value at the way and relation levels?
PLEASE state writing refs properly in relations, too.
Properly in this sense means uniquely. "I 5" not
"5".</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font
color="#000000"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000">CR and CH s are
troubling. Minnesota has numerous CH 1 s or CR 1 s. So do
most states. So whether we write CR 1, CH 1, or 1 it won't be
unique even in the state, let alone between states. I do not
have a unique solution to propose. Fortunately most regional traffic
events happen on state routes (e.g., CA, US, I ) and most CR events
are of local interest only. But I would request that we use a
consistent labeling for CR s, for which I would propose "CR n"
so at least we know it's not a state route.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font
color="#000000"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000">I guess I feel
strongly about this ... :)</font></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>I can see you do, so there is an obvious need to "state
this." Clearly. With a good growth path to achieving
harmony. Something like a formal grammar could be quite
helpful. A way of specifying what is valid tagging and how to
grow things. A warm blanket of ISO codes might work or seem like
a good idea or a suffocating blanket, it probably depends.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Starting a small grammar that states a (could be rough at first)
harmony among "what is" lands upright. In other words,
what is specifically ambiguous (becoming what IS CLEAR) and what is
specifically "meant" by a "national overlay" of
the sort Richard "speaks." That voice speaks with
certain volume, and some harmony sounds like a sort of tuning up the
choir we might agree with a set of tags that work. With today's
renderers, with renderers of the future. So, let's spec a
bit.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>One place to start is to spell out the name of the sovereign
state which claims the numerical carving into that ref number space.
A tag like state=Minnesota (in your software, in your grammar, in OSM
possibly) could begin a nice warm linguistic ooze that gels everything
like lark's tounge in aspic. That is just an idea, an example of
stirring in a hook or some sugar. There are wonderful such
meeting places in this map, including these conversations. OSM
has free-form grammar, which makes the space to do this very creative
and clay like. Model away. Think first, I know you do, as
it does help. Posit tags. Posit structure.
Harmonize. It is work, yet it can be done.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>SteveA</div>
<div>California</div>
</body>
</html>