<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 9:01 PM Paul Johnson <<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org" target="_blank">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">You're on a trip heading towards
Heresville, Nebrahoma. You're coming up to a fork in the road, and your
nav says "In 300 meters, stay left on Nebrahoma State Route 36 (NA
36)." That added no value to the situation, nor can the data consumer
filter against that. Especially since some segment of Nebrahoma 36
might end up on 36th Street in Anyton. Locales in the middle
inconsistently put variations of Route 36, Highway 36, or whatever else
on the finger signs instead of using the correct shield with double
ended arrow sign instead in between, but it's immediately apparent
that's not the name but the highway number. Tagging it <font face="monospace">noname=yes</font>, <font face="monospace">ref=NA 36</font> solves for literally all of this, isn't ambiguous in any way and avoids annoying and distracting duplication.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree that is not very helpful for a navigation system use case, but this doesn't seem like a major problem to me. Navigation systems are also only one of many use cases for OSM data. Let's think about a map renderer with this same fictional place. This map renderer wants to display name labels on all roads but since some don't have a <span style="font-family:monospace">name </span>tag it constructs names from <span style="font-family:monospace">ref </span>values as well. From the <span style="font-family:monospace">ref </span>value "NA 36" it expands NA into "Nebrahoma", and 36 into "State Route 36" for a full label of "Nebrahoma State Route 36". So far so good. In the nearby state of Vermochussetts, VO 25 is similarly expanded to
"Vermochussetts State Route 25". This is not so good. In Vermochussetts this is the proper term is "Vermochussetts Highway 25" as that is how it is printed on signs and all state DOT publications. A <span style="font-family:monospace">name </span>tag with the value
"Vermochussetts Highway 25" solves this problem for the map renderer. Without <span style="font-family:monospace">name </span>tags, the different terms each state uses for its highways aren't available. <br></div><div> </div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>I'd
generally consider names on a brown sign to be honorific or secondary
names outright as that definitely disambiguates the name. ... But
some states are like Nebrahoma and renames the primary name of highway
itself<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Vermont is not one of these states. Grand Army of the Republic Highway is exactly this kind of honorific, secondary name signed only occasionally on very small signs (though they are green not brown). This is why I'm so adamant that it belongs in <span style="font-family:monospace">official_name</span>, not the main <span style="font-family:monospace">name </span>tag. It may be appropriate for an <span style="font-family:monospace">official_name </span>like this to exist on sections where the only other name is Vermont Route XX. In these case the correct tagging is going to either be:</div><div><br></div><div> <span style="font-family:monospace">noname=yes</span> + <span style="font-family:monospace">official_name=Grand Memorial Remembrance BlahBla</span>h</div><div><b>or</b><br></div><div><span style="font-family:monospace">name=Vermont Route XX</span> +
<span style="font-family:monospace">official_name=Grand Memorial Remembrance BlahBlah</span></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family:monospace"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">I think </span>name='Grand Memorial Remembrance BlahBlah</span>' should always be considered incorrect when it is an honorific or secondary name like this. However, in a case where this really is the primary name of the road it would absolutely be correct. Obviously it requires strong local knowledge to know the difference.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> <br></div></div>
</div>