<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 6:29 PM Tod Fitch <<a href="mailto:tod@fitchfamily.org">tod@fitchfamily.org</a>> wrote:<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 style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><br>
<div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Nov 20, 2021, at 4:01 PM, Paul Johnson <<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org" target="_blank">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>> wrote:</div><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>Expansions like this are usually handled in the description field of a road route relation. Why not name? Sometimes routes are named and/or numbered. Creek Turnpike would be an example of a named route, it having OK 365 as a ref is a relatively recent update. Or OK 51, the 42nd Rainbow Infantry Division Highway (or something like that). It's also a named route. But most route relations have descriptions that often match a reasonable expansion (though this can't be gauranteed, perhaps we need ref:stylized as a hint to consumers; example, <font face="monospace">ref:stylized=State Highway 51</font>.</div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br><div>The creation of a ref:stylized=* tag is an interesting idea. I think that would fit the situation I see in some rural areas where there is no obvious name on state highways.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I should probably clarify that I strongly suggest we stick this to the object that it best applies to, so in the case of what you see on the shield, this would be the relation, not the way. I'd love for the project worldwide to move away from describing routes outside of their specific relations long term. ref=* on the way to describe a longer route was clever before relations became a thing but it's a bit of a hammy bodge more than a decade after relations became a thing. </div></div></div>